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. 310

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Slurs in FE (→GE,EE)

Slur suggested by the editors
..

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Triplet slurs

b. 310

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur in A (→FC→GE)

No slur in FE (→EE)
..

The slur under the 2nd and 3rd crotchets, the only one in the L.H. part in both appearances of the C minor theme (except for b. 325 and analog.), can be considered a model entry, to be applied in all similarly structured figures. However, according to us, it is more likely that the slur was left as an inconspicuous remnant of the quest for the most proper way of marking that accompaniment. The slurs are visible both in the original version of b. 310-311, deleted in A, and in analogous b. 412-415, where the four-bar phrase mark was also deleted. On the basis thereof, one can assume that Chopin eventually abandoned the idea of slurs in this part, satisfied with the legato indication, repeated a few times (in b. 326, 412 & 428). The absence of the slur in FE (→EE) is probably an oversight of the engraver, yet taking into account the above observations, this version can be considered equivalent. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 310

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

A (→FC,FE) is missing the rest opening the top voice. Since the second time (b. 412) Chopin did write a rest in an identical situation, we consider its absence here to be an oversight. The addition was performed already in GE and EE. See also the note below.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 310-311

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

In both bars the L.H. part was eventually crossed out after a series of alterations and rewritten on an adjacent stave. In the deleted version, most probably identical with the final one in terms of pitch, the following are noteworthy:

  • Direction of the top voice crotchet stems. They are directed downwards, which means that Chopin opted for strictly two-part notation only when preparing the Scherzo for print. The starting point was the homogeneous movement of the crotchets while holding some notes to achieve a fuller sound ('harmonic legato'). See also b. 326-329.
  • Whole-bar slurs, not included in the final version.
  • A removed mark over the c minim in b. 310, independent from the deletion of the entire bars, so probably earlier. It was probably a rest, which would suggest that its absence in the final version could have been intentional. However, Chopin could have added a rest, since he was considering to change to a strictly two-part notation; then he realised that he would have to introduce more corrections and removed the rest with the intention of rewriting the whole L.H. part from scratch.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A

b. 310-333

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

6 longer, 6 shorter slurs in A

2 longer, 9 shorter slurs in FC

10 longer slurs in FE

3 longer, 9 shorter slurs in GE1

9 longer slurs in EE

12 shorter slurs in GE2 (→GE3)

12 longer slurs suggested by the editors
..

The slurs over the motifs of the bottom voice in A are of different length: they encompass the quavers only or reach the minim in the next bar. On many occasions, it is difficult or even impossible to say conclusively which of the slurs Chopin meant. Since there is no visible reason for those actually identical motifs to have different slurs, in the main text we unify them, assuming the six-note slurs to be more frequent in A. None of the remaining sources reproduced Chopin's notation accurately; the differences in FC and FE are exclusively of an accidental nature, whereas GE1, EE and GE2 (→GE3) also introduced arbitrary changes, ordering the notation.

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

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in FC