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. 8-10

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

No markings in JC & EF

Dots and slurs in PE
..

Dots under a slur were willingly used by Chopin to indicate the portato articulation (cf. e.g. the Nocturne in D major, Op. 27 No. 2, bar 35, the Mazurka in B minor, Op. 24 No. 4, bar 138). Therefore, we consider this characteristic indication, present only in PE, as most probably authentic and we give it in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 8

composition: Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major

No mark in CLI & GE4 (→GE5)

Long accent in FE

Short accent in GE1 (→GE2→GE3) & EE
..

The accent sign in FE is clearly different than in bars 1-2. Most probably, according to Chopin's intentions, it was supposed to be a long accent. Both in GE and in EE it was rendered as a casual short accent. In GE4 (→GE5) the sign was omitted, which was probably a mistake.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in GE

b. 8

composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor

Long accent in Ap & FEcor

 &  in FE (→GE,EE) 
..

In the main text, according to the entries written by Chopin himself in FEcor and Ap, we give the long accent mark over the 2nd crotchet in the L.H. In FE (→GE,EE) it was given a form of a  hairpin on the 1st beat of the bar, which totally changed its meaning. In the next proofreading Chopin brought back the stress on the E-e octave by adding  this time. According to us, it was an ad hoc intervention, forced with an erroneous interpretation of the intended by Chopin accent's mark, which is more compatible with the whole of dynamic markings of the Etude (a comparison of Ap with the final version shows that while preparing the Etude for printing, Chopin made a careful selection of the marks; he would often discard  marks, among others; cf., e.g., bar 4).  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 8

composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor

..

In the manuscripts there are no cautionary naturals before the first two semiquavers in the upper voice. In FE (→GE,EE) there is a sign before e2, while in GE and EE4 a  was added also before f2.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals

b. 8

composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor

..

In CLI there is no  returning d2 on the 5th semiquaver in the upper voice. It must be a mistake.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors of CLI