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. 284-285

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

No marks in FE (→GE,EE)

2 accents suggested by the editors
..

In the main text, we suggest adding two accents in the L.H. after analogous bars 132-133.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 284-285

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Long accents in FE

Different accents in GE

Short accents in EE
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies

b. 284

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

No markings in GE

Accent & slur in FE & EE2, contextual interpretation

Accent in EE1, contextual interpretation

Our variant suggestion
..

In the main text we suggest the markings of FE for the chordal section starting from the syncopated crotchet; there is a possibility to add the staccato dot from GE in analogous b. 25. At the same time, we correct the third accent, which was misplaced, i.e. it was put over the first chord in b. 284 (which is tied!). EE1 repeated the mistake of FE and also overlooked the slur (which was added in EE2).   

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 284-285

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Slur from b2 to f3 in A, possible interpretation

Slur from a2 to f3 in GE (→FE,EE)

Slur from b2 to g3 in A, contextual interpretation
..

As in the previous bar, the beginning of the slur having been placed in GE (→FE,EE) at the beginning of bar 285 is probably a routine revision by the engraver of GE1. As far as the ending of the slur is concerned, in A it is clearly inaccurate – the fact that it reaches only e3 is musically inexplicable. However, it is uncertain whether Chopin wanted the slur to reach only f3, as is the case of GE (→FE,EE), or the g3 quaver, after the remaining slurs in bars 283-286, which always end on longer rhythmic values (quavers or crotchets). In the main text we incline toward the latter.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions

b. 284-285

composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV

Slurs to b2 & from c3 in A, literal reading

Slurs to a3 & from g3 in GE (→FE)

Slurs to b2 & from g3 in EE & IE

Slurs to g3 & from c3, our alternative suggestion

3 slurs, our different suggestion
..

The extension of the slur in bar 284 in GE is most probably a routine revision assuming that the A slur is inaccurate; actually, it looks as if Chopin stopped writing it after having encountered an obstacle in the form of the a3 quaver. In this context, the similarity between A and the slurs in EE and IE could be puzzling; perhaps the GE slur was changed in the last stage of proofreading – cf. bar 225. In GE (→FE,EE,IE) the described change is accompanied by an earlier starting point of the slur in bar 285, as a result of which all quavers in this fragment are encompassed by slurs. This change is unarguably contrary to the A notation.
In the main text we reproduce the A slurs, as it is uncertain whether they are inaccurate or not – perhaps Chopin wanted to lead the slur from bar 284 to g3 at the beginning of bar 285, which is suggested by the following slurs, or simply embrace a3-g3 with a slur, as he did in a similar situation in bars 73-74. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , FE revisions ,