mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 560-579

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

8 longer, 6 shorter slurs in A, literal reading

8 longer, 6 shorter slurs in FC, literal reading

14 longer slurs in FE (contextual interpretation→EE, contextual interpretation)

7 longer, 7 shorter slurs in GE1

14 longer slurs in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The slurs encompassing the ostinato quaver figures in A are of different length: some reach the following crotchet, some do not. Statistically, it is the former that clearly prevail: 8 longer, 6-note slurs to only 4 shorter and 3 questionable ones (we interpret the questionable ones literally as short). The remaining sources do not show traces of Chopin's influence on the range of those slurs; except for minor inaccuracies, FC and GE1 reproduce the text of their Stichvorlagen, while FE (→EE) contain longer slurs only (we discuss b. 574-575 separately due to FE having overlooked the slur). In this situation, we base the main text on the above analysis of the notation of A; taking into account a high degree of structural and functional similarity of the discussed motifs, we suggest uniform, 6-note slurs in all figures.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 567

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

​​​​​​​under 3rd semiquaver in FE (→EE)

​​​​​​​ under minim in GE
..

The shift of the ​​​​​​​ mark most probably resulted from lack of space in [A] ​​​​​​​under the stem of the minim in the L.H. In GE, the mark was placed in accordance with the pianistic sense, i.e. at the beginning of the bar.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 572

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

No slur in FE (→GE,EE)

Slur suggested by the editors
..

In the main text, we suggest adding a slur combining the upbeat with the beginning of the next bar – the musical connection of that quaver with the next phrase is unquestionable, yet the a tempo indication appearing only just in bar 573 may distort the correct phrasing if interpreted literally. Both the missing slur and placement of a tempo may actually be a random inaccuracy related to the transition to a new page in FE. 

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 577

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

Small crotchet in FE

Acciaccatura in GE & EE
..

The grace note in the form of a small crotchet is most probably a mistake of FE – cf. bar 250. A similar conclusion was reached already by the revisers of GE and EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 577-585

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

​​​​​​​at end of bar in FE (→GE,EE)

​​​​​​​on 5th quaver suggested by the editors
..

Taking into account the explicit harmonic change on the 3rd beat of bar 577, it seems highly unlikely that Chopin would have envisaged the entire bar performed with one pedal. Therefore, the ​​​​​​​ mark is most probably placed inaccurately – the scheme from the previous bars was mechanically repeated. The suggestion given in the main text aims at correcting the inaccuracy in order to avoid an unjustified mix of harmonies. There is a similar situation in bar 585.  

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE