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: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No sign in A1, CK (→CB) & EL

 in CJ, literal reading

Long accent in CJ, possible interpretation

Our variant suggestion
..

It is difficult to interpret the mark in CJ – it has uneven arms, as a result of which it is uncertain when it should begin, while its ending falls within the 2nd half of the bar, written using abridged notation, which hampers the estimation of its range. Moreover, the absence of the mark in the remaining sources, and particularly in CK, which is based on the same source, suggests that it could have been entered by mistake – the first halves of b. 8-9 are graphically very similar, which could have confused the copyist. According to us, assuming that the mark was present in [A2], we consider a long accent to be the most likely interpretation. Due to the described doubts, in the main text we give this accent in a variant form. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in JC

b. 8-9

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

in AI & AF

in FE

No sign in EE

in GE1

Inverted long accent in GE2
..

We consider that the  hairpins in AI and AF are of the same range – the mark begins over the d1 crotchet in AI, and under the f1 minim in AF, hence in both cases on the 2nd beat of the bar. In GE the mark is a reversed long accent at the beginning of b. 9, yet it is highly likely that it was reproduced inaccurately due to the transition into a new line, starting from b. 9 – an earlier beginning is particularly indicated by its placement in GE1. Therefore, uncertain as to the exact range of the mark in [AG], in the main text we convey the hairpin after AF.
The version of FE is inaccurate, whereas the one of EE – erroneous.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 8-9

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

No slur in AI & FE (→EE)

d-G slur in AF & GE
..

The absence of a separate slur for the bass voice is most probably an oversight of the engraver of FE (→EE). The slur (as well as the staccato dot over G) is also absent in AI – cf. the note in the upbeat.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 8-9

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

New slur from 2nd quaver in AI & GE

New slur from 1st quaver in AF, literal reading

Overlapping slurs in FE (→EE)
..

In AF both the ending of the slur in b. 8 and the beginning of the slur in b. 9 are written inaccurately, as a result of which each of the given versions may be considered an interpretation of this notation. According to us, the latter is to be interpreted as beginning from the 1st quaver of the bar, which is indicated by the similar yet more accurate versions of notation of AI and AF in analogous b. 100-101 (in AF the version prior to combining the slurs). To the main text we adopt the version of FE, perhaps proofread by Chopin (the first slur having been extended). The version of AI and GE may be considered an equal variant.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Chopin's hesitations , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 8-9

composition: Op. 28 No. 2, Prelude in A minor

..

As lacks the  raising f to f at the beginning of b. 8. The inaccuracy of notation is proven by the e note featured in the 2nd quaver. The accidental is also absent in b. 9, in which probably the top note of the 1st quaver was marked.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information