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. 166-169

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

cresc. - - in bar 169 in AF (→FE)

cresc. - - in bar 166 in GE

cresc. in bar 169 in EE
..

Just like in b. 158-161, in the main text we give the version of AF (→FE→EE), in which a continuous cresc. starts only just in the second half of the eight-bar section. The version of GE, also undoubtedly authentic, can be considered an equal variant.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 166

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

Crotchet f1 in AI & AF (→FE→EE)

Quaver f1 in GE
..

In the main text we give the simplified – most probably by Chopin in [AG] – notation of GE. The only perceptible difference affecting the performance is the rhythmic value of the f1 note in the chord on the 2nd quaver of the bar.
In AI this bar is of draft nature, written hastily and containing numerous crossings-out. The final version corresponds to the one of AF.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Chopin's hesitations , Corrections of AI

b. 166

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

..

In AI there is no  lowering c1 to c1, moreover, AI and AF lack a  lowering C to C. The inaccuracy of AF was corrected in FE (→EE); it is also GE that features the correct text.
Before e1 on the 3rd beat, all sources except for GE contain a superfluous .

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Cautionary accidentals , FE revisions

b. 166

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

No sign in AI & GE

 in AF, possible interpretation

 in AF (contextual interpretation→FE→EE)
..

The range of the  hairpin raises doubts in AF due to its arms of different length. A comparison with analogous b. 158, in which the range of  is confirmed by the concordant version of AF and GE, points to the top, shorter arm as the more reliable one. This is how it was reproduced in FE (→EE).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in A

b. 166-167

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

e1 tied in GE

e1 repeated in FE (→EE)

Our variant suggestion
..

The authenticity of the tie of GE does not raise major concerns; there could also be a number of reasons for its absence in FE (→EE), e.g. an oversight of the copyist or of the engraver of FE or the tie having been added to [A] after [FC] had already been finished. On the other hand, it is the version of FE, which repeats e, that is compliant with the version of analogous b. 225-226. Therefore, in the main text we suggest a variant solution.

category imprint: Differences between sources