mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
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. 3-4

composition: Op. 63 No. 1, Mazurka in B major

Longer slur in AI & GE2 (→GE3)

Shorter slur in FE (→GE1,EE)
..

The revision of GE2 (→GE3) was probably an attempt at standardising the inconsistent notation of FE, in which throughout the entire Mazurka slurs generally reach the 1st beat of even bars (as in bars 1-2). The AI slurring, which is more consistent in this respect, confirms that some deviations from the most frequent slurs are accidental inaccuracies, as is the case, e.g. with the discussed bars. Due to the above, in the main text we provide here a longer slur.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: GE revisions

b. 3-4

composition: Op. 63 No. 3, Mazurka in C# minor

2  in FE (→EEW) & GE2 (→GE3)

No markings in GE1
..

The missing  marks in GE1 must be an oversight, corrected in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 3

composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor

..

In the main text we add a cautionary  to the f1 minim.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 3-4

composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor

..

In bar 3 all sources feature a completely unjustified  (cautionary?) to the first G note. In FC a respective  was also added in bar 4 (in pencil). We do not consider this accidental to be part of FC, since it was added by the reviser of GE. In addition to GE, the latter was also added in EE. In the main text we omit both accidentals.

The sharp in bar 3 must have been entered into [A] by Chopin. According to us, it could be an echo of the initial notation of bars 1-2, in which the top R.H. minim was written down as g1.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Enharmonic corrections

b. 3-8

composition: WN 29, Waltz in E minor

No  in PE

 in b. 3 in GE

[] in b. 8 suggested by the editors
..

The missing  mark may correspond to the notation of [A] or even to Chopin's intention – such situations are very frequent in his pieces; what is more, they do not always result from inadvertence. However, in this case the notation may be misleading – a single  mark in such a harmonic, dynamic and pianistic context most probably means that the pedal should be held until the very end of the passage, which we specify in the main text with the help of a [] mark. However, the addition of a relevant mark in GE proves that not everyone considered such pedalling natural or even correct.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions