mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in GE

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 64 No 3, Waltz in A♭ major

Slur continued in A (→FE→EE)

New slur in GE
..

Due to accumulating inaccuracies, caused by the transition to a new line – in FE and GE it begins in bar 6 – the slur in GE ends in bar 5, whereas bar 6 is embraced with a new slur (although in GE1op and GE1Ab the slur in bar 6 suggests a continuation). In the main text, we give the unequivocal slurring of A (→FE→EE). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 5

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

..

In the absence of [A], it is difficult to determine whether the curved line over the g notes in FE (→GE,EE) is a tie sustaining those notes or a motivic slur (in Chopin's autographs, the differentiation is possible due to the shape of the curved lines). According to us, it is a motivic slur that is more likely here.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies , Tie or slur

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

3 short accents in FE (→GE,EE)

3 long accents suggested by the editors
..

In all sources, 3 subsequent accents in bars 5-6 are short. We consider it to be an inaccuracy of the engraver and suggest long accents in the main text:

  • long notes – in this case dotted g1 minims – are generally provided with long accents by Chopin;
  • the motif at the end of bar 5 is a repetition of the motif in bar 4, in which a long accent is unquestionable in FE.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

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

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

 in FE, literal reading

in GE

 in FE (contextual interpretation→EE)
..

In FE (→GE) the  mark is placed only in b. 6, the first in a new line. However, the manner it was placed suggests that Chopin wanted it to begin earlier, probably similarly to the hairpin in b. 7-8. This is how it was understood in EE and this is the version we give in the main text. In turn, in GE the mark was considered to have been carelessly engraved, thus it was being gradually shortened and its starting point moved towards the 1st quaver in b. 6. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions

b. 5-10

composition: Op. 28 No. 2, Prelude in A minor

..

In EE the L.H. slur in b. 5 – the first in a new line – begins from the 1st quaver, although the slur in the previous bar suggests continuation. The inaccuracy was most probably a side effect of the slur in b. 5-7 having been moved under the notes (though otherwise justified, since the notation of FE is illogical here: the slur in b. 1-4 is led under the notes, whereas its continuation in b. 5-7 – above). Inconsistent slurs between lines are also present in FC and GE – slurs in the bars opening a new line (b. 6 and 10 in FC and 5 and 9 in GE) run from the 1st quaver of the bar, contrary to the notation at the end of the preceding lines. (We do not reproduce the inaccuracies of FC in our transcriptions due to a different division into great staves.)

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in FC , Uncertain slur continuation