mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE inaccuracies

b. 560-579

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

8 longer, 6 shorter slurs in A, literal reading

8 longer, 6 shorter slurs in FC, literal reading

14 longer slurs in FE (contextual interpretation→EE, contextual interpretation)

7 longer, 7 shorter slurs in GE1

14 longer slurs in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The slurs encompassing the ostinato quaver figures in A are of different length: some reach the following crotchet, some do not. Statistically, it is the former that clearly prevail: 8 longer, 6-note slurs to only 4 shorter and 3 questionable ones (we interpret the questionable ones literally as short). The remaining sources do not show traces of Chopin's influence on the range of those slurs; except for minor inaccuracies, FC and GE1 reproduce the text of their Stichvorlagen, while FE (→EE) contain longer slurs only (we discuss b. 574-575 separately due to FE having overlooked the slur). In this situation, we base the main text on the above analysis of the notation of A; taking into account a high degree of structural and functional similarity of the discussed motifs, we suggest uniform, 6-note slurs in all figures.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Uncertain slur continuation

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

b. 593

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

No mark in EE

Short accent in GC (→GE) & FE
..

Accent in EE must have been omitted.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE inaccuracies

b. 600-603

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Slur in EE, simplest interpretation

Slurs in GC

Slurs in FE, simplest interpretation

Possible interpretation of FE

GE
..

Those obvious inaccuracies in the three editons obscure deciphering Chopin's intentions regarding slurring of the part. In the main text we present the slurs notated without clear faults in  GC. They represent possible articulationn of the chords progression. While interpreting the slur in # EE we assume that the error applies to b. 600 (half of the line spanning bars 598-600 has no slurs in EE). We retain the slurs in GE as despite the inaccurate copy of the basis (GC) they are formally correct. The FE slurs may be interpreted in a variety of ways, among others as distorted GC slurs or as the aforementioned.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 602-603

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

 in EE

GC (→GE2)

No sign in FE & GE1
..

For the main text we adopt the musically indisputable GC hairpins  (→GE2, omitted in GE1). The corresponding mark in EE seems to be placed inaccurately - crescendo on the the resounding chord is in fact impossible to execute on the grand piano. No sign in FE may indicate a less carerful edition of execution markings in [A2] (cf. annotation to b. 373)

 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , EE inaccuracies