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. 141

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

..

Just like in a few similar places (bar 117, 269 and 293), we preserve the overlapping slurs in the main text.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

b. 141-173

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No marks in A (→FC→GE)

Wedge in bar 165 in FE (→EE1→EE2)

Dot & wedge in EE3

4 wedges suggested by the editors

4 dots, our alternative suggestion
..

In b. 141, 149, 165 and 173 separate staccato markings for the L.H. chords are featured only in b. 141 (dot) in EE3 and in b. 165 (wedge) in FE (→EE). Only the latter could have come from Chopin; however, such a separate addition seems to be highly unlikely. According to us, it rather points to a mistake of the engraver. In spite of lacking source basis, in order to avoid doubts, in the main text we suggest adding the markings featured in the R.H. to the notation of the L.H.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , FE revisions

b. 141-173

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Dots & wedge in A

Wedge in bar 141 in FC, possible reading

Dot in bar 141 in FC (different reading→GE1)

Dot & wedge in FE (→EE)

3 dots in GE2

2 dots in GE2

4 wedges suggested by the editors

4 dots, our alternative suggestion
..

It is unclear whether the staccato markings with which Chopin provided the R.H. chords in b. 141, 149, 165 and 173 are to be interpreted as wedges or dots. The mark in b. 165 must be a wedge, whereas those in b. 141 and 173 – dots (in b. 149 the mark can be interpreted either as a wedge or a dot); however, it seems unlikely that Chopin would have wanted to differentiate between those marks within the theme. In the main text we suggest wedges due to the predominance of wedges in a similar situation in b. 9, 17, 33 and 41, where we also discuss the analogous places in the entire Scherzo. All discrepancies in the remaining sources are of an accidental nature; in GE they were combined with unifying procedures.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Wedges , Errors of FC

b. 141-143

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

  in AF (→FE)

  in GE

 in EE
..

In the main text we give the   hairpins after AF (→FE), in which they are compliant with all markings of the sources in analogous b. 145-147. It suggests that the marks of GE in the discussed bars may be inaccurate. The absence of the second mark in EE is most probably a mistake.
In AI such markings are absent for the rest of the Mazurka.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 141-143

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

No slur in AI 

Slur from b in AF

Slur from c1 in FE (→EE) & GE
..

It is unclear whether Chopin wanted the slur to begin from the c1 quaver or the b crotchet. The fact that the slur in FE (→EE) starts earlier than in AF is most probably an inaccuracy, which suggests that the slur of GE, of the same range, can also be inaccurate. However, the shape of the slur of GE1 shows that its initial fragment was being corrected in print, perhaps at Chopin's request, hence this is the version we give in the main text.
AI is devoid of slurs in these and next bars (until b. 152), which together fill the last line of the 2nd page of AI. Therefore, it is Chopin's inadvertence – on the next page the R.H. slurring is continued in this autograph.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of GE