mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Centrally placed marks

b. 5

composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor

in A, contextual interpretation

No indication in FE (→GE,EE) 

Our variant suggestion
..

Not being certain whether the lack of sempre legato in FE (→GE,EE) is accidental, we give the indication in brackets. In bars 45-46 the analogous passage is embraced with slurs in all sources, which indirectly confirms the legato articulation also in this case. In spite of the fact that the indication in A begins only in the 2nd group of semiquavers, its binding force from the beginning of the passage is undeniable.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Centrally placed marks

b. 8-9

composition: Op. 30 No. 2, Mazurka in B minor

in bar 8 in FC (→GE)

in bar 9 in FE (→EE)
..

The difference in the position of  could result from the vague [A] notation, in which the mark was probably in the place of the bar line (Chopin would write separate bar lines on each stave). The musical context requires  to be introduced already from d2 in bar 8, hence in the main text we put it at the end of this bar, in accordance with FC (→GE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Centrally placed marks

b. 10-12

composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor

 in A

FE (→GE,EE) 
..

In A  marks in bars 10 and 12 are written only on the 4th beat in the bar, on  marks. According to us, the way of their arrangement is a result of the already disappearing in Chopin's times convention of writing marks inside their scope of validity (and not at the beginning). This is how it was understood in FE (→GE,EE), in which the indications were moved before the octave motifs. This phenomenon also appears in bars 50-53 and 60-63, to an even greater extent.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Centrally placed marks

b. 12

composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor

 in AI, literal reading

 in AI, contextual interpretation

 in FE (→GE,EE2)

, possible interpretation of FE (→GE,EE2)

 in FE (→GE,EE2), probable interpretation

 &  in EE3 (→EE4)
..

The  mark in AI is clearly valid from the beginning of the bar. In turn,  in FE (→GE,EE2), apart from the literal reading, can be interpreted in several ways, e.g., as  valid in this place or – which is more plausible – as  valid from the beginning of the bar. In the main text we propose the latter, being the resultant of both source notations (Cf. also analogous bar 62).
In EE3 (→EE4) an arbitrary  was added to  adopted from FE (near the end of the bar), probably on the basis of comparison with bar 62.  

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Centrally placed marks

b. 14

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

 in FC & FE, probable interpretation

 in GE (possible interpretation of FC)

No markings in EE1 (→EE2)

 in EE3
..

The  sign is placed in the sources between the 1st and 2nd beat of the bar, so it is unclear from which moment it is supposed to be valid. It is particularly visible in FC – a big sign, placed in the centre, seems to include the first two beats of the bar. However, when interpreted formally, it is valid only from the 2nd beat and this is how it was understood in GE. In the main text we assume that the hint refers to the entire bar (in any case, to the entire initial part of it). It is also compatible with the interpretation of FE.

The  reach , hence the moment of their ending depends on the location of this sign.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Centrally placed marks