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. 159

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Hairpin in FE (→GE,EE), literary reading

Long accent in FE (→GE,EE), contextual interpretation
..

A hairpin in all sources is a possible inaccuracy of the engraver – in similar bar 167, the length of the mark clearly points to a long accent.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies

b. 159

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

Slurs in AI, possible interpretation of AF

Slurs in Af (literal reading→FE→EE) & GE

Slurs suggested by the editors
..

In AF both the ending of the slur from the previous bars and the beginning of the new one are written inaccurately, hence it is unclear which notes they are supposed to concern. The ending of the former is similarly inaccurate in GE, which suggests that it was also [AG] that was not precise in this respect. We reproduce the text of both sources the way it was performed in FE (→EE), which seems to be closest to this notation. However, we are convinced that Chopin meant the slur to be divided after the 1st beat of the bar, as in AI or the way both AF and GE have it in analogous b. 167.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 159-160

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

No sign in AI & GE

in Af

in FE (→EE)
..

In the main text we give the  mark written in AF, in which the dynamic markings in this fragment – see the note in the previous bar – are more detailed as a whole than in GE. However, the exact range of the sign may raise doubts – its arms are of different length, while in an analogous situation in b. 167-168 a respective mark reaches the 2nd beat of b. 168 only, which seems to be more natural in this context (locally, f1 is the topmost note of the melody, suspension and syncopation). Such a range of this  mark, slightly shorter, is featured in FE (→EE), yet it may result from the engraver's inaccuracy.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in A

b. 159

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

Rest in AI

No rest in AF (→FE→EE) & GE
..

In this layout, the rest in AI, although formally justified, could suggest the g note to be played by the L.H. Therefore, it seems that it could have been the reason for its removal in AF (→FE→EE). Chopin omitted it also in GE. In analogous b. 167 the rest was crossed out both in AI and AF.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A , Corrections of AI

b. 159-161

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Slur in GE

No slur in FE (→EE)
..

The missing slur in FE (→EE) is probably an oversight of the copyist or of the engraver.

category imprint: Differences between sources