mUltimate Chopin

Issues : Authentic corrections of FE

« Previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Next »

b. 326-330

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No pedalling in A

in bars 328 & 330 in FC (→GE1)

in bars 326 & 328 in FE (→EE)

3 times in GE2 (→GE3)

A comparison with analogous b. 428-432 proves that the complementary pedalling markings in b. 326, 328 and 330, added by Chopin in FC and FE, are to be considered jointly; the second time Chopin added three pedals in each of the two sources. A proper addition was also introduced in GE2 (→GE3).

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of FC

Show

in transcript in source compare sources

b. 348

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur from f in A (→FE,FC→GE)

Slur from B in EE

The version of EE, which can be considered an interpretation – ignoring the musical sense – of the slur of A, written with panache, could have been repeated after FE, which, after all, was based on A. In the very FE the erroneous slur would have been corrected in the last phase of proofreading (although there are no visible traces of such a correction on the available photocopies of FE copies). In turn, the slur in GE1 – beginning from f in the previous bar – is completely erroneous. The engraver could have mistaken the bars, since they end with the same note (the mistake was corrected in subsequent GE).

Learn more »

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Inaccuracies in FC

Show

in transcript in source compare sources

b. 383

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur from 1st note in A (probable interpretation→FE→EE) & GE

Slur from 2nd note in A (possible interpretation→FC)

In A it is unclear whether the phrase mark is to begin from the 1st or the 2nd note of the bar, which was reflected in the differing versions of FC and FE (→EE). At the same time, in FE there are visible traces of shortening the phrase mark, which initially reached b¹ in the previous bar. The version of GE is probably a 'standard inaccuracy' resulting from a tendency to adjust phrase marks (and dynamic hairpins) to regular rhythmic structures, e.g. bars, which is documented in a number of Chopin's pieces.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Authentic corrections of FE

Show

in transcript in source compare sources

b. 394

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

3 crotchets in A (→FC→GE)

Dotted rhythm & crotchet in FE

Crotchet & dotted rhythm in EE & FESf

The origin of the version of FE is unclear. It may be Chopin's proofreading; it would be then the latest authentic version. On the other hand, one cannot exclude a mistake of the engraver: looking at the already finished, correctly engraved version of FE, the engraver could have mistakenly associated the dot prolonging the f¹ minim with the e¹ crotchet and could have added the allegedly missing quaver flag to the next note. The second possibility is supported by the fact that the notation of FE is not entirely correct, since extending dots should be both next to e¹ and f¹. One can assume that Chopin would have bothered to add the second dot if he had prolonged the 1st crotchet. In this situation we consider the version of FE only a variant of uncertain authenticity while saving the main text for the undoubtedly Chopinesque version of A. The version of FE was regarded as erroneous already in EE, in which, however, not knowing the authentic version, the rhythm of the three previous analogous bars was introduced (369, 373 and 390). The same correction was entered into FESf, which could have also been performed by analogy and which does not influence the evaluation of a possible authenticity of that version.