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. 8-9

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

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