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. 137-169

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

2 wedges & 2 dots in A

4 wedges in FC

4 times 2 dots in GE
..

In the main text we give the staccato markings in b. 137, 145, 161 and 169 on the basis of the homogenous notation of FC. The alternating wedges and dots in A indicate Chopin's inaccuracy: the unquestionable wedge in b. 161, along with the notation of A in b. 5-37, make us consider the wedges to be probably intended. The omission of the markings in FE (→EE) must be a mistake, whereas the double dots in GE – a revision (there is no top dot in b. 169 in GE2, which is a patent oversight).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Wedges , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 137

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

In the main text we omit the cautionary  before c4, featured in FE (→EE). The accidental may be a remaining part of the initial notation of the preceding semiquavers as e3-c4, which would demonstrate that the enharmonic change was performed already in [A].

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Enharmonic corrections

b. 137-139

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

No pedalling in AI & GE

Pedalling in AF

Pedalling in FE (→EE)
..

The absence of pedalling markings in GE must be considered an inaccuracy in these bars. All similar phrases – b. 11-12, 103-104 and 135-136 – are provided with such pedalling markings at least in one of the authentic sources; whenever discrepancies occur, they can most likely be considered an inaccuracy. In the discussed place the reason could have been, e.g. an oversight of the engraver of GE1 – these bars open a new line, and pedalling markings are absent in GE also in b. 139-140. In FE (→EE) the  mark was placed inaccurately, probably due to the notation of AF, which can be misleading at first sight.
In AI pedalling markings do not appear for the rest of the piece.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 137-140

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

No upper part in AI

Upper part, notation AF

Upper part, notation FE

Upper part, notation GE

Upper part, notation EE
..

In AI these bars follow b. 101-104 and continue the R.H. homophonic texture present in these bars. Apart from the missing additional voice over the quaver figuration, the differences with respect to the final version include:

  • the regular b1-c2-d2 sequence at the beginning of b. 137,
  • the initial version of the 2nd and 3rd beats of b. 140 – a1-e1-d1-c1.

Discussion of the differences in the notation of the two-part fragments in b. 138-140 – see the note to b. 134 and 136.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 137

composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

a3 in A

a3 in FE (→GE,EE)
..

It must have been Chopin who removed the natural to the 5th quaver while proofreading FE (→GE,EE). This is the second correction at this point – in A one can see that the next note was also changed, most likely from g3 to f3. Therefore, the last two notes of the first half of the bar were, in chronological order, a3-g3, a3-f3, and a3-f3.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Main-line changes