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. 376-378

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur to e1 in A (→FE→EE)

Slur to bar 378 in FC (→GE)

Slur to end of bar 376 suggested by the editors
..

In this case, the easiest explanation for the longer phrase mark of FC (→GE) is a mistake resulting from the change of division of the text into lines. The phrase mark in A reaches almost the end of the line, since b. 377, which ends it, is very tight. The copyist wrote an entire phrase in that line, until b. 378, and wrote a phrase mark whose range was similar to A, yet measured in relation to the end of the line. The ending of the tie of c1, put in A in b. 378, is an alternative opportunity to commit a mistake: Chopin did not place it at the pitch of the note head, but at the end of the stem, as a result of which it looks like a phrase mark.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FC

b. 376-377

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

L.H. slur in A

No slur in GE (→FE,EE,FESB)
..

The missing L.H. slur probably resulted from lack of space in GE1. It does not really matter, since Chopin himself would often write only one slur over parts of both hands written down together on one stave, considering it to be valid for both hands – cf., e.g. the Ballade in G minor, Op. 23, bars 1-5.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 376-377

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Slur to beginning of bar 377 in AsI & A

Slur to beginning of bar 377 in AsI & A

Slur to last note of b. 376 in GE (→FE,EE)

Slur to last note of b. 376 in GE (→FE,EE)
..

In GE (→EE) the slur starting in bar 376, which ends a line, clearly suggests that it should be continued; however, there is no ending thereof in bar 377. In FE and FESB the slur was led only to the last semiquaver in bar 376, interpreting the notation of GE as an inaccurate ending of the slur. We interpret it similarly in the content transcription of GE and EE.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 376

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Continuous slur in AsI

New slur from 4th semiquaver in A, literal reading

New slur from 2nd semiquaver in GE (→FE,EE,FESB)
..

When interpreted literally, the R.H. slur starts in A from the 4th semiquaver in the bar. It must be an inaccuracy (cf. the L.H. slur), probably caused by ink stoppage. It was already in GE1 that this situation was evaluated properly, hence in all editions the range of this slur is correct.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 377

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Short accent in EE

Long accent in GC & FE

No mark in GE
..

The short accent in EE, given the lack of a note to be accented, must an inaccuracy of notation as there is a long accent here in both GC and FE. Lack of accent in GE must be an element of revision based on an assumption that in GC the tie on g was omitted.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , GE revisions