mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 447

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

No mark in FE (→GE,EE1)

in EE2 (→EE3)

[] suggested by the editors
..

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies

b. 448-449

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

2  signs in FE (→GE)

from c1 in EE

from b suggested by the editors
..

!!!    ZMIENIĆ   !!!

In FE (→GE), the engraver placed two separate  hairpin marks – the former in bar 448 and the latter in bar 449. It must be an inaccuracy of the engraver (cf. the marks in bars 450-451 and 452-453), most probably caused by the fact that in FE bar 449 a new line (missing endings of such elements of notation as slurs, dynamic hairpins, particularly when transitioning to a new line or page, are a frequent mistake of the editions). In EE, the reviser justly placed one mark. We suggest beginning the hairpin right after the  mark.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 449-451

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

Slur from 2nd beat in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

No slur in GE3

Slur from 1st beat suggested by the editors
..

A comparison with analogous bar 453 most probably points to an inaccurate notation of the beginning of the slur in the sources. It is also the Chopinesque fingering, indicating those figures to be performed legato, that supports the idea of encompassing the first group of semiquavers with a slur.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE

b. 450-452

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

Incomplete slurs in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slur in bar 452 in GE3

Slurs suggested by the editors
..

Both the ending of the slur in bar 450 and the beginning of a new one in bar 452 fall on musically unjustified places. That gives rise to the suspicion that the notation could be inaccurate or even erroneous. A possible cause of that inaccuracy is indicated by the correlation between the slurs and the octave sign – the first slur ends where the octave sign begins in the sources, while the second slur begins just when the octave sign ends. A similar situation occurs in the autograph of the Etude in E​​​​​​​ major, op. 10 no. 11, bars 40-42; therefore, it may be the composer himself that is responsible for the inaccurate slurs. In the main text, we extend the slurs so that they encompass all semiquavers; moreover, in bar 452, we suggest beginning a new slur due to the beginning of a four-bar section. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE

b. 451-452

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur to g in A (→FC), literal reading (→GE1)

Slur to e in A (→FC), contextual interpretation (→FE→EE) & in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The slur of A (→FC) reaches the line ending b. 451, yet it does not go beyond it, so it is uncertain whether it is supposed to encompass the e minim in the next bar or not. In the main text we adopt the former as closer to the notation of analogous b. 349-350, in which the respective minim is certainly encompassed with a slur. This is how the slur was interpreted in FE (→EE), whereas in GE1 the slur ends on the last g note in b. 451.
In FE the slur begins already under the third of the top voice in b. 450, which is a patent inaccuracy.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A