mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE inaccuracies

b. 11-12

composition: Op. 25 No 1, Etude in A♭ major

Two-bar long slur in AI, A (→GE) & FE

Two slurs in EE
..

The broken slur of EE may result from misunderstanding of the manuscript, perhaps inaccurate. In A, bar 11 closes the line; this layout, conducive to ambiguities in the slurs' notation, was probably repeated in the manuscripts which served as base texts for FE and EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE inaccuracies

b. 11-12

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II

No marks in GC (→GE)

Long accents in FE

Short accents in EE
..

No accents in GC (→GE) is almost certainly an oversight of the copyist, who overlooked all signs between the staves in bars 7-13. The short accents in EE are certainly a result of the standard interpretation of the notation of FE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies , Errors of GC

b. 12

composition: Op. 24 No. 2, Mazurka in C major

A wedge in A

No sign in GE1 (→FE→EE)

A dot in w GE2 (→GE3)
..

The wedge above the crotchet b1 appears only in A; GE2 (→GE3) have a dot added instead.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies

b. 12

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II

 in GC (→GE)

No sign in FE (→GE)
..

No  sign in FE (→EE) is certainly an oversight of the engraver – there is a respective sign in analogous bar 200, but both bars were printed on the basis of the one and only notation of [A].

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies

b. 12-13

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

No sign in Afrag

 in A1 (literal reading→FE1)

 in A1, contextual interpretation

in GE & EE
..

According to us, the  hairpin written in A1 is to be interpreted as ending before the  indication in b. 13. It is most likely that Chopin first wrote the top arm (perhaps before entering ) and then indicated the end of the mark with the ending of the bottom arm. Such an interpretation is confirmed by the mark of A1 in b. 36 and the notation of GE based on [A2] (in GE2 the mark was shortened with respect to GE1, which does not influence its meaning). In FE the mark was interpreted according to the length of the top arm; moreover, FE2 reproduced it inaccurately. It remains unclear how come that the mark was shortened in EE – perhaps by analogy with b. 36. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Corrections in A , EE inaccuracies , Hairpins denoting continuation , Inaccuracies in A