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. 295-297

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

R.H. slur from a in A (→FC→GE1, →FE→EE)

Slurs from b & d in GE2 (→GE3)

Slurs from a & c suggested by the editors
..

According to us, the majority of the sources led the slur up to b. 297 in order to clearly mark the fragment of A, heavily crossed out. A comparison with analogous b. 274, 376 & 397 proves that Chopin considered a slur reaching b. 296 to be enough, and this is the one we give in the main text. It was also the crossings-out that were probably the reason for the missing slur in the L.H., which we hence add. The differently led slurs of GE2 (→GE3), which repeated the erroneous slurs of GE1 from b. 274-275, cannot be justified, in terms of both sources and music.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 295-297

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur to e1 in A (→FC→GE1, →FE→EE)

Slur to bar 297 in GE2 (→GE3)

Slur to end of bar 295 suggested by the editors
..

The range of the top phrase mark in A is not entirely certain: its ending falls between e1 and a. In accordance with the majority of the remaining sources, we assume that it was to be e1. However, a comparison with the remaining analogous places prompts us to lead the phrase mark slightly further (the tenuto-slur emphasising the hold of e1).  The longer phrase mark of GE2 (→GE3) is modelled after the phrase mark in b. 274-276.

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

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions

b. 295

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

..

As with the other similar bars, in FE (→EE) it is only the top note of the 1st R.H. octave that is separated as a crotchet, which is a mistake. To the main text we adopt the notation of GE, which is undoubtedly correct.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 295

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Crotchet in sources

Dotted crotchet suggested by the editors
..

Like in analogous b. 36 and 62, we consider the missing dots prolonging the f1-f2 octave at the beginning of the bar to be Chopin's oversight.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 295

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

..

In GE and FE1 there is no accidental to the bottom note of the L.H. chord on the 3rd beat of the bar (d). FE2 and EE added a , which we include in the main text. This and other additions were also introduced in b. 296-297.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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