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. 294-295

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

g-e1 tied in A (→FC) & GE2 (→GE3)

g repeated in FE (→EE)

e1 repeated in GE1
..

The missing tie of g in FE (→EE) and the one of e1 in GE1 must be mistakes of the engravers: in both cases it was a motivic slur in the next lower voice (see the notes below) that was printed instead of a tie. In FE it is also the notation of the tie of e1 that is inaccurate: the correct tie is present only in b. 294, which ends the line. GE2 (→GE3) added the tie that had been overlooked in GE1.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 294-295

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No slur in A (→FC) & GE2 (→GE3)

Slur in FE (→EE) & GE1
..

The slur combining e with d in FE (→EE) is a result of a mistake of the engraver of FE, who misinterpreted the tie of g. The same slur in GE1 is probably a result of a standard completion of the allegedly missing slurs. The erroneous slur was omitted in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 294

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

No c2 in GE

Tied c2 in FE (→EE)
..

The version of FE (→EE), identical to the version of GE and analogous b. 61 in terms of sound, possibly originated as an ad hoc correction of the engraver's mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Terzverschreibung error , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 294-295

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Slurs from E to g in GE1 (contextual interpretation) & FE (→EE)

Slurs from  F1 to a in GE2

Slurs from E to a, our alternative suggestion
..

Like in b. 61-64, in the main text we give the unequivocal slurs of FE (→EE). The slurs of GE1, starting earlier, may convey the inaccurate notation of [A], which most probably indicates slurs of the same range. The version of GE2 must be arbitrary. Our alternative suggestion is based on the assumption that the engravers could have routinely interpreted the endings of the slurs.

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

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 294

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Crotchet f1-f2 in GE

Crotchet f2 in FE (→EE)

Dotted crotchet f1-f2, our alternative suggestion
..

Like in analogous b. 61, in the main text we give the notation of GE, which is undoubtedly correct. In the suggested alternative version, the notation was brought into line with the authentic notation of subsequent bars, since there are no visible reasons to differentiate between the rhythmic values of the top and bottom notes of this octave.

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

issues: Inaccuracies in FE