mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 581-588

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

8 short accents in EE, GE and probably in GC

Possible long accents in GC

7 long accents in FE
..

Accents in these bars may be interpreted as long (especially in FE, and probably in GC) or short (EE and GE, more probbale in GC). For the main text we adopt short accents because of the notation including rests at the end if each bar - if Chopin wanted to suggest longer sounds, he should have written crotchets. As and additional argument to support this view, we see that in FE in bars 613-616, repeating bars 581-584, there are short accents. In FE there is no accent in 588, which is obvious inaccuracy.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 585

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

R.H. accent in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

No mark in GE3

L.H. long accent suggested by the editors
..

In the sources, placing an accent under the tied note of the R.H., which deprives the mark of its actual meaning, suggests an inaccuracy in reproducing the Stichvorlage. In the main text, we repeat the notation of the analogous bar of exposition (bar 235) – a long accent over the L.H. part. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 592-624

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

2 dots in A

Dot in bar 600 in FE (→EE) & GE1

4 dots in GE2 (→GE3)
..

Among the R.H. chords in b. 592, 600, 616 and 624, it is only the one in b. 600 that is provided with an unequivocal staccato mark (dot) in A (and in the remaining sources). B. 592 could also contain a dot; however, the potential mark is quite far from the chord and blends with the end of the slur; it was repeated neither in FC nor in FE. The missing marks are most probably an inaccuracy, hence in the main text we suggest dots in all four places. Such an addition was also introduced in GE2 (→GE3). 

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

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FC , Inaccuracies in A

b. 593

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

Minim in FE (→GE)

Dotted minim in EE

Quaver & minim suggested by the editors
..

In the main text, we specify the Chopinesque notation of the sustained d bass note. Chopin used this kind of simplified notation of sustained notes a few times (e.g. in the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, 2nd mov., b​​​​​​​ar 15), yet in this case a strict notation does not excessively complicate the notation (a similar notation is to be found, e.g. in the Fantaisie in F Minor, Op. 49, bar 43 and subsequent). The notation introduced in EE, although still vague, may be, however, considered to be more precise than the original one, particularly if we take into account the fact that originally a dot did not precisely determine the rhythmic value a note should be prolonged with. 

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 593

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

​​​​​​​in FE (→GE1→GE2)

in EE

in GE3

 [] suggested by the editors
..

In this context, the missing  mark must be considered an inaccuracy – the fact of writing down a hold of the bass note with hand is most probably aimed at enabling clear pedalling, compliant with harmonic changes. The mark was added already in EE. It is present also in GE3, in the place we suggest in the main text. However, GE3 also arbitrarily moved the ​​​​​​​ mark.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , No pedal release mark