mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 585

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

R.H. accent in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

No mark in GE3

L.H. long accent suggested by the editors
..

In the sources, placing an accent under the tied note of the R.H., which deprives the mark of its actual meaning, suggests an inaccuracy in reproducing the Stichvorlage. In the main text, we repeat the notation of the analogous bar of exposition (bar 235) – a long accent over the L.H. part. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 586

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

No slur in FE (→GE1→GE2)

Slur in EE & GE3
..

Omission of one bar in slurring of such accompanying figures must be considered an inaccuracy. Therefore, in the main text we include the whole-bar slur added already in EE and GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 588-620

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

2 times two & 2 times one dot in A

1 dot in FE (→EE)

4 times 2 dots in GE
..

Differently than in the two previous appearances of this theme (b. 5-37 and 137-169), in b. 588, 596, 612 and 620 there are no wedges at all in A. In turn, Chopin twice introduced separate marks for the L.H., which we consider to be determinant for the entire fragment. The use of double marking could have been related to the presence of longer, tied notes in the preceding motifs. The same unification was introduced in GE, whereas the notation of FC and FE (→EE) has to be regarded as inaccurate or erroneous.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Wedges , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 589

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

2 noteheads in FE (→EE)

1 notehead in GE
..

Both notations are almost equivalent; however, in exposition Chopin changed the former to the latter, formally less strict yet simpler and thus more explicit, in several dozen bars (see bars 257-263). In the further part of recapitulation, it is also the latter that prevails; hence we consider this place an example of an overlooked proofreading of an analogous place and we include the change introduced in GE in the main text. See also bars 601-603.   

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 589-590

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Long accent in A (→FC,FE)

Short accent in GE1 & EE

in GE2 (→GE3)

 suggested by the editors
..

In accordance with the analysis of the Chopinesque  or  marks in this and analogous pairs of bars (see b. 6-7), in the main text we give an averaged, more or less one-bar  hairpin. According to us, all hairpins, regardless of their actual length, are to be interpreted as long accents.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies