mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Centrally placed marks

b. 45

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

 in Atut (literal reading→FE→GE,EE)

 in Atut, possible contextual interpretation

 suggested by the editors
..

The position of the  mark, in spite of the compliance of all sources, is questionable. It is most probably an example of the Chopinesque manner of writing indications within the range of their validity; however, it is unclear whether Chopin conceived  already at the beginning of the bar, like it was indicated in the orchestral parts (), or from the semiquaver tremolando. In a similar context in bars 99 and 111,  is written already at the beginning of the bar, which we consider to be a hint at the time of choosing the version to the main text. 

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Centrally placed marks

b. 45-46

composition: Op. 28 No. 16, Prelude in B♭ minor

 in A (literal reading→FE1)

 in A (contextual interpretation→FE2→EE)

No marking in FC (→GE)
..

The  mark is placed in A between the pair of the final chords, hence the fact that FE1 assigned it to b. 46 is formally justified – markings are not retroactive. However, it seems much more likely that Chopin applied here the manner of writing indications within the scope of their range, and the mark is supposed to concern both chords, as it was performed in FE2 (→EE). Cf., e.g. the Concerto in E Minor, Op. 11, 1st mov., b. 16.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , FE revisions , Errors of FC , Centrally placed marks

b. 48-49

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

Long accent in A1

Short accent in FE (→EE)

  in GE1

 in GE2

  suggested by the editors

Our alternative suggestion
..

In the main text we suggest to reconstruct the version of [A2], which could have been distorted in GE1 due to the transition into a new line (after all, it cannot be excluded that it was in the autograph itself that the pair of hairpins was placed directly under the d1 minim). As there are no doubts that the marks are to emphasise this very minim, according to us, one can also combine the  of GE1 with the accent of A1. The versions of FE (→EE) and GE2 result from inaccuracies and mistakes of the engravers.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Centrally placed marks

b. 51-63

composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor

 &  in A

FE (→GE,EE) 

Our suggestion
..

In A the dynamic marks –  and particularly  – in bars 51-53, 60 and 62-63 are written only on the 4th beat of the bar, sometimes on  marks. According to us, it is an example of use of an earlier notation convention by Chopin – see bars 10-12. In FE (→GE,EE) only one of the indications was reproduced in accordance with A (bar 52), some of them were overlooked (in separately discussed bars 61-62) and the remaining ones were arranged in such way so they concern entire octave motifs pursuant to the currently binding notation rules. Cf. the remarks concerning  marks in bars 51-63.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Centrally placed marks

b. 57

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

  in A1, contextual interpretation

   in CJ

   in CK

   in CB

  & delicato in EL
..

In A1 Chopin wrote the  indication between the 2nd and 4th notes of the run. It is an example of the obsolete convention of placing indications within their scope, and not at the beginning or slightly before (cf. b. 58). The following dynamic hairpins differ in their range, which, however, is of no significance in this context. In the main text we reproduce the notation of CJ, which does not raise any stylistic doubts and probably reproduces the notation of [A2] pretty faithfully. The hairpins of EL adjusted to the semiquaver beaming must result from an editorial revision.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Centrally placed marks