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. 170-172

composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

 in A, literal reading

in FE

in GE

in EE

 suggested by the editors
..

The interpretation of the three  marks in A can be approached from different angles:

  • Literal interpretation, in which the range of the marks is related to the respective R.H. crotchets, which results in three increasingly shorter marks. Such a version, suggesting increasingly shorter and milder crescendos, matches the descending direction of this sequence;
  • the difference in the range of the first two marks may be regarded as insubstantial, which suggests that all three hairpins should be unified, since the shape of the melody is the same in each bar. We suggest this version in the main text.

The versions of the editions resulted from the marks in b. 170-171 having been unified; none of these changes resembles Chopinesque proofreading process.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in A

b. 171

composition: Op. 43, Tarantella

..

We add cautionary  before g in LH. A similar addition was made in EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions

b. 171-172

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

 in EE & GC (→GE)

 in FE

Variant suggestion of the editors
..

Both asterisk marks  appearing in the sources are definitely authentic. Chopin wrote the version of FE (asterisk in bar 171) probably later than the version of EE and GC (asterisk in bar 172), yet there are no premises to consider it as definitive. That is why in the main text we give both pedalling alternatives as variants.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 171

composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major

..

In FE1 the A-a octave was mistakenly written a major second too high. The error was corrected in FE2 (→FE3).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 171

composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major

No slur in A (→FE1,EE)

Slur from 2nd semiquaver in GC (contextual interpretation)

Slur from 1st to last semiquaver in GC (possible interpretation→GE)

Slur from 1. semiquaver to next bar in FE2 (→FE3)
..

Based on the slurs added most probably by Chopin in GC and FE2 (→FE3), the absence of the slur in A is probably an oversight of the composer, perhaps related to the transition to a new page in A. However, the range of the slur is questionable:

  • The beginning of the slur is unclear in GC. The composer's corrections in A in bars 169-170 militate in favour of beginning the slur from the 1st semiquaver – Chopin would move beginnings of slurs from the 1st to the 2nd semiquaver in similar figures. According to us, the counterargument in the form of the slur of FE2 is of less importance, since the text in that edition is so dense that the engraver could have easily misinterpreted a Chopinesque proofreading entry.
  • The ending of the slur is also dubious – both in GC and FE, the discussed bar ends the page, and the slur, which suggests continuation, is either deprived of continuation in the next bar (FE) or starts from the 1st semiquaver (GC). We consider a continuous slur to be much more likely in such a homogeneous notation, and this is how we interpret both GC and FE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections in GC