mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Tie or slur

b. 5

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

..

In the absence of [A], it is difficult to determine whether the curved line over the g notes in FE (→GE,EE) is a tie sustaining those notes or a motivic slur (in Chopin's autographs, the differentiation is possible due to the shape of the curved lines). According to us, it is a motivic slur that is more likely here.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies , Tie or slur

b. 10-11

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

No slur in AI & GE

Slur to bar 11 in AF

Slur in bar 10 in FE (→EE)
..

The missing slur in GE is a result of inadvertence, perhaps of the engraver, since this edition features slurs in an analogous motif in b. 11-13. The slur of FE (→EE) is inaccurate and misleading – it looks like a tie of f1.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Tie or slur

b. 22-23

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

No slur in AI

Slur in AF & GE

Tie to a in FE (→EE)
..

Just like in b. 18-19 and 20-21, in the main text we give the slur added to the version prepared for print – AF and [AG] (→GE). The slur in FE (→EE) was placed on the side of the noteheads, which made it look like a tie of a.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in FE , Placement of markings , Tie or slur

b. 201-202

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Slur d1-b in FE (→EE1)

Tie to b in GE & EE2 (→EE3)
..

In FE the tie to b was inaccurately reproduced, as a result of which it looks like a slur meant to combine d1 on the 3rd beat of b. 201 with b in b. 202. This is how it was understood in EE1, in which a slur clearly combines those two notes. The patent mistake was corrected in EE2 (→EE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Tie or slur