mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in GC

0
b. 35-36

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Beginning of the slur in EE & GC (→GE)

FE

Our suggestion
..

Differences between the sources seem to result here from inaccuracy of notation, or even from somewhat imprecise notation of Chopin himself. For that reason we propose a slur modelled after the phrasing in analogous bars 117-118. See also bars 377-381.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 38-41

composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major

Slurs in A (→EE)

GC

FE

GE
..

Only EE recreated the notation of the slurs of A correctly. The version of FE, despite shortening the slurs, does not change the general idea of Chopin's phrasing. However, both the inaccurate slurs of GC and their arbitrary interpretation in GE distort the phrasing determined by Chopin.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 39

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I

Dots in GC (→GE)

No marks in FE1

Wedges in FE2 (→EE,FE3→FE4)
..

[A] most probably included wedges, as Gutmann considered them to be staccato dots on a number of occasions (cf., e.g., the Etude in F major, Op. 25 No. 3, bars 49-52). Chopin wedges were actually often misinterpreted as dots also by the engravers, in turn, misinterpretation of dots as wedges was almost inexistent. Therefore, in the main text we give wedges, added in FE2 (→EE,FE3→FE4) most probably on the basis of [A].

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions , Wedges , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 40-41

composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major

 in A

 in GC (→GE)

No sign in FE

 in EE
..

Both the omission of the  sign in FE and its slight extension in GC (→GE) are undoubtedly of an accidental nature. However, the shorter hairpins in EE may be a result of the interpretation of the notation of A – Chopin would extend the initially written long accent and the result of these corrections is not entirely clear, as a part of the sign in bar 41 has the form of a single horizontal line. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 41-44

composition: Op. 25 No 3, Etude in F major

..

Similarly as in bars 20-24, in the notation of [A] – for the notation of the autograph we consider the compatible version of GC and FE – seven necessary accidentals (naturals) are missing, which, however, does not impede the correct interpretation of the text. In EE1 (→EE2), the notation is already more accurate (in relation to GC and FE 2 signs were added, in the R.H. in bar 41), while the next 3 naturals were added in EE3. GE has the correct version, yet in GE1 there are no signs in the 2nd group in bar 43, which, from the graphical point of view, is the same as the previous one (repeating the signs in such situation is a question of convention).
An inaccurate notation is also present in two subsequent bars.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC