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. 383

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur from 1st note in A (probable interpretation→FE→EE) & GE

Slur from 2nd note in A (possible interpretation→FC)
..

In A it is unclear whether the phrase mark is to begin from the 1st or the 2nd note of the bar, which was reflected in the differing versions of FC and FE (→EE). At the same time, in FE there are visible traces of shortening the phrase mark, which initially reached b1 in the previous bar. The version of GE is probably a 'standard inaccuracy' resulting from a tendency to adjust phrase marks (and dynamic hairpins) to regular rhythmic structures, e.g. bars, which is documented in a number of Chopin's pieces.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 384-385

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Slurs in A

Slurs in GE

Slurs in FE (→EE)
..

In the main text we give the slurs of A, which do not raise any doubts concerning both the sources and music. However, the version of GE may be considered at least to be equal:

  • an inaccuracy consisting in engraving a slur incompatible with the division into bars or groups is something practically unusual in GE1, which, in spite of the lack of visible traces of corrections, makes Chopin's proofreading highly likely. The proofreading of the slurs can also be indicated by the slurring of FE (→EE), perhaps reproducing the state of GE1 from before the last phase of proofreading;
  • Chopin wrote such a system of slurs in analogous bars 40-41.

The arguments for the adoption of the notation of A are as follows:

  • a legible, unequivocal notation;
  • no dynamic markings in these bars, emphasising the beginning of the ascending passage – cf.   in bars 40-41. A shorter slur of A suggests that a new thought begins in bar 385, which compensates this deficiency to a certain extent.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 384-385

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Staccato dots in FE (→EE)

No marks in GE
..

In GE, the engraver overlooked staccato dots for the 1st quavers in the L.H. in these bars.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 384-385

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

after 4. quaver in FE

under 4th quaver in GE & EE
..

In GE and EE, the earlier placement of the  markings is unintentional, resulting from an inept layout of text. There is a similar situation in bars 392-393.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies

b. 384-385

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

e2-e3 repeated in FE (→GE1→GE2)

e2-e3 tied in EE & GE3

Tying of e2-e3 suggested by the editors
..

The missing ties of the e2-e3 octave are most probably an oversight – cf. the analogous motifs in bars 381 and 383. Due to this reason, we suggest ties of this octave in the main text. Relevant additions were performed already in EE and GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions