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

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

In GE1 the middle note of the 2nd chord in the R.H. is a d3 instead of c3. A comparison with the other sources and analogous bars proves that it is a mistake, corrected in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 8-16

composition: Op. 22, Andante spianato

Long accents in FE (→GE1), contextual interpretation

Short accents in EE & GE2 (→GE3)
..

We reproduce the accents in b. 8, 11 and 16 as long ones, although the marks in FE cannot be unequivocally classified as long or short accents (however, they are clearly longer than the accents in b. 52 or 55-62). Long accents are strongly supported by the musical context: the accentuated e3 in b. 8 is the longest and top-most note of the 8-bar phrase, while the syncopated c3 in b. 11 is a similar type of climax of the final melodic section of this phrase. We encounter a similar problem in the evaluation of the accents in GE1: it is only the clearly shorter marks in b. 52 (as well as a greater number thereof in the Polonaise) that convince us to consider them long. The marks in EE and GE2 (→GE3) must be short.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies

b. 8-9

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

c1 repeated in Afrag & GE, possible interpretation of FE1 (→EE)

c1 tied in A1 (→contextual interpretation of FE1)

No c1 in FE2
..

It seems that Chopin abandoned the tie of c1 – in analogous b. 32-33 the tie is absent in all the sources, while in GE it is absent in all three analogous places (b. 8-9, 32-33 and 64-65). The absence of the tie in Afrag can be explained twofold (unless it is simply an oversight):

  • as testimony to Chopin's hesitation, if we consider this autograph to be earlier than A1;
  • as confirmation of abandonment of that tie, if it was written at a time when A1 had already been prepared.

In FE1 (→EE) the tie was reproduced erroneously in b. 9 – such mirror images of marks can often be found in Chopin's pieces, e.g. in the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, 3rd mov., b. 172-173. The erroneous tie was removed in FE2; however, the correct one was not added – it may be seen as Chopin's proofreading and another argument for abandoning the tie of that note (the issue of presence of the c1 note in FE2 at the beginning of b. 9 – see the next note).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Chopin's hesitations , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 8

composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major

g1 dotted minim in A1

g1 minim in FE (→EE)

g1 dotted minim in GE
..

The missing tie of g1 in FE (→EE) is most probably an oversight, perhaps provoked by the notation of A1, in which the g1-b1 third is written with the use of one-part writing despite different rhythmic values of both notes. In the main text we give the more accurate notation of GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Different values of chord components

b. 8

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

f in A1 & CJ

d in CK (→CB) & EL
..

The concordant text of A1 and CJ leaves no doubts that it was also [A2] that featured f here. Therefore, the d note present in CK (→CB) and EL is a result of an arbitrary decision and most likely Kolberg's mistake, doubled by the use of abridged notation and reproduced by further copying.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Terzverschreibung error , Kolberg's revisions