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. 1-5

composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major

Long accents in A1 & GE1

Short accents in FE (→EE) & GE2
..

In the main text we give 5 long accents placed between the staves, which corresponds to the unequivocal notation of A1. The notation of GE1 is generally compliant with the above, although it is difficult to say conclusively whether they are short or long accents on the basis of GE1 only; anyway, they are slightly longer than the majority of the accents in the middle section of the Mazurka. The version of the remaining editions, with short accents over the top stave, must be a result of routine revision: the engravers of FE and GE2 reproduced the marks in the same manner, yet independently. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Placement of markings , GE revisions

b. 1

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

No indication in AI & GE

mezza voce in AF (→FE→EE)

Our variant suggestion
..

It is impossible to state whether the omission of the dynamic marking in GE was intentional without [AG]. Due to the above reason, in the main text we include mezza voce from AF (→FE→EE) in a variant form.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: No initial dynamic marking

b. 1

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

..

AI is devoid of tempo markings. Generally, there are barely 3 verbal indications in the entire AI:  in b. 17 and 89 and  in b. 191; therefore, Chopin apparently abandoned writing more detailed performance indications when it turned out that this autograph would not be a Stichvorlage. Due to the above reason, both here and hereinafter we generally indicate the absence of indications in AI in notes (these versions are suggested as variants only when one of the remaining sources is lacking in indications).

The crossings-out visible in AF over the beginning of the piece prove that Chopin was looking for the best indication of its tempo and character, just like in both previous Mazurkas. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Chopin's hesitations , Deletions in A

b. 1

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

 in A1

 in CJ, CK (→CB) & EL
..

The  time signature present in A1 seems to be more accurate for the melody written with minims and the quaver accompaniment. However, later in the piece, with numerous changes of time signature, it always returns as . Therefore, it seems that Chopin eventually opted for , which is confirmed by the copies based on [A2] – CJ and CK, in which this time signature was present from the beginning of the piece.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: 4/4 or 2/2

b. 1-3

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

c in A1

C in CJ, CK (→CB) & EL
..

The version of the later sources must be a Chopinesque improvement – it is common to encounter bass notes having been lowered by an octave (or an added bottom octave) throughout the work on a piece in his output, e.g. in the Mazurka in C Minor, Op. 50 No. 3, b. 77, 79 and analog. or in the Etude in A Major, Op. 25 No. 1, b. 1. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Accompaniment changes