mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Sign reversal

b. 57

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

 in FE (→EE)

 in GE1 (→GE2)

No sign in GE3
..

Reversed marks are quite frequent mistakes – cf. e.g. the 2nd mov. of the Concerto, bar 47 or the Etude in C Minor, Op. 10 No. 12, bar 53. In GE3, the mark was omitted, probably due to inattention – see the next note.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Sign reversal

b. 65

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

No signs in JC

 in EF

  in PE

 &  suggested by the editors
..

When read literally, the dynamic signs of PE in this bar create problems in interpretation. Combination of three signs in such a small space, out of which two, partially overlapping, indicate contrary dynamic changes, suggests inaccuracies or errors in reading [A]. According to us, the first sign is put inaccurately, while two subsequent ones – erroneously (mirror reflection of the sign). In the main text we propose the latter, interpreted as a long accent and  hairpins.

EF has longer  hairpins here, which in this situation may be considered as an alternative for the indications based on PE. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Sign reversal , Errors in PE

b. 72-73

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

Inverted long accent in bar 72 in FE

​​​​​​​ in bar 72 in GE1 (→GE2)

2 inverted accents in EE

​​​​​​​ in bar 73 in GE3

2 accents suggested by the editors

Our alternative suggestion
..

In FE (→EE), the reversed accent is probably a mistake of the engraver, which is indicated by the common accent in analogous bar 300. Therefore, in the main text we give an accent both in this and in the next bar, like Chopin marked it in bars 300-301. There is also a possibility that the ​​​​​​​ hairpin in the 1st half of the bar was inaccurately placed – such a hairpin is present in (in bars 72 and 73) clarinet I in FEorch (→GEorch). The interpretation of the mark in GE1 (→GE2), graphically close to the version of FE, is, however, contrary to the actual sound of the orchestra, in which it is the chord in the middle of the bar that is played by the greatest number of instruments. GE3 tried to mitigate that discrepancy by moving the mark to bar 73, where it is a sui generis introduction to the authentic cresc. in bar 74. 

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

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Sign reversal

b. 76-77

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

d3 repeated in As, AI & A (→FE→EE)

d3 tied in GE & FED
..

Same as in bars 66-67 and 70-71, both source versions of the melody at the transition between the bars are almost certainly authentic. In the main text, we give a version with a repeated d3, written in the basic source, A (→FE→EE). Similarly in bars 92-93.
GE1no2 erroneously puts the tie between the two notes in bar 76 (a "mirror" mistake).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Sign reversal , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 84

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

Inverted long accent in A1, probably interpretation

Long accent in FE

in GE

No mark in EE
..

The mark of A1, with arms of different length, may be interpreted as a reversed long accent or a short  hairpin, which would correspond to the version of GE. According to us, the former is more likely; however, in the main text we adopt a non-reversed long accent, which may be a result of Chopinesque proofreading of FE and which is compliant with the unquestionable marking in analogous b. 76.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Sign reversal , Authentic corrections of FE