mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Placement of markings

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. 315-316

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

 in FE (→EE)

 in GE1 (→GE2)

 in GE3
..

In FE (→EE), the placement of the  marks suggests that the first one concerns the R.H., whereas the second one, the L.H. Since it does not seem likely that such differentiation could be intended by Chopin in this context, both marks are probably misplaced. In the main text, we move them to between the staves, since, according to us, they refer to both hands. Changes striving in that direction were gradually introduced in GE1 (→GE2) and GE3. See also the adjacent note.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Placement of markings , GE revisions

b. 391

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

Slur above chords in FE

Slur below chords in GE1 (→GE2) & EE

No slur in GE3
..

Moving the slur under the stave was certainly caused by graphic issues. The absence of the slur in GE3 can be explained by an oversight or revision.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Placement of markings , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 416-431

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Short accent in EE & GC

Long accent in FE

Accent in GE
..

The length of an accent used here remains an unsettled issue -  short in EE and GC or long in FE (also in subsequent bars - compare bars 418-431). For GE we adopt a short accent just like GC, and the fact that the accent is placed under the RH part must have been the engraver's arbitrary decision. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Placement of markings , GE revisions