mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Placement of markings

Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 224-227

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

End of the slur in EE & GC (→GE)

FE
..

The consistency of the slurring in EE and GC (→GE) suggests that the slur notation was  imprecise in the autograph. For our main text we take the slur of FE as undoubtedly correct.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Placement of markings , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 230

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No sign in A (FE→EE)

 in FC (→GE1)

 in GE2 (→GE3)
..

In the main text we give the  hairpin entered by Chopin into FC (→GE1). In subsequent GE the mark was arbitrarily shortened and moved to above the top stave. A similar situation can be found in b. 681.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Placement of markings , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 265

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

in A

in GE1 (→GE2)

 in FE1, EE & GE3

in FESB
..

The  hairpin is written in A between the staves and begins after the 1st R.H. chord (in Af the bottom arm starts as early as at the beginning of the bar). In GE (→FE,EE) the mark was moved to over the R.H. part, which, in this case, does not significantly influence its meaning. The change was most probably forced by lack of space between the staves; it cannot come from Chopin. The slight change of range in GE1 (→GE2) – the beginning of the mark was moved slightly to the right – was intensified by all subsequent editions, while FESB additionally reversed the direction of the mark, which is a frequent mistake in the first editions of Chopin's pieces. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Placement of markings , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Sign reversal

b. 279

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

 above chords in A (→GE)

below R.H. chords in FE (→EE)

Long accent under R.H. chord suggested by the editors
..

It is difficult to say what Chopin's motives were when he put such a long mark in a place that appears several times (even if we limit ourselves to the strictest analogy, 4 times – bar 283 and previously bar 112 and 116) and that he marked with clearly shorter signs the other times – long accents (bars 116-118, 277, 281 and 285) or their slightly longer counterparts. Therefore, in the main text we provide a long accent. The position of the marks – see bar 277. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , Placement of markings

b. 312

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Short accents in A & EE2

Long accents in GE

Short accent in b. 314 in FE (→EE1)
..

The accent in bar 312 could have been added to A after [FC] had been finished, which is indicated by it having been placed differently than the accent in bar 314 (under and not over the octave). The type of accents can give rise to doubts, since they are slightly longer than those at the beginning of bar 311, 313 and 315. The musical context suggests that all five marks should be considered equally (they concern crotchets separated by rests), which is confirmed by the unquestionable long accents in the middle of bar 313 and 315, clearly longer than all the remaining ones. In GE the two discussed accents were reproduced as long, while in FE (→EE1) the only mark in this edition in bar 314 – as short. In EE2 both accents are short – the former on the basis of FE2, while the latter – inaccurately repeated after GE1.
Despite their differing position, once under and once over the octave, both marks in A clearly concern the L.H., hence, for the sake of clarity, we place both under the octaves. In GE both accents were placed over the octaves; moreover, it was performed in an ambiguous manner, as far as their assignment to one of the hands is concerned.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Placement of markings , GE revisions