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. 383-384

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

Long accents in A (→GE→EE,IE)

2 short, 1 long accents in FE
..

The typical position (after a note) of the three marks resembling accents visible in A allows us to consider them long accents, although the marks themselves are closer to short accents. This is how they were reproduced in GE (→EE,IE). It is difficult to say why the first two accents were changed to short ones in FE.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 383

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

Tie to c2 in A & EE

Slur f2-e2 in GE (→FE,IE)
..

In the main text we provide the A tie, clearly at the pitch of c2. The fact that in GE (→FE,IE) it was assigned to the middle notes of the chords (f2-e2), hence turning it into a slur, was an arbitrary decision by the engraver of GE. Moving the slur to the pitch of c2 in EE, hence restoring it to its initial form, a tie, was also arbitrary – the publisher did not have access to A, yet he interfered with the notation of the slurs/ties between the pairs of the L.H. chords in this place by adding slurs/ties in the next bar, in which Chopin did not write them.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 383-384

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

No fingering in A (→GE→FE,IE)

Fingering in EE
..

In the main text, we do not include the inauthentic fingering added by EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

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