mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b.

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

No mark in FE (→GE)

> in EE

[>] suggested by the editors
..

The missing accent on the syncopated L.H. chord in FE (→GE) is a patent inaccuracy of notation, hence we add it in the main text. The accent is also included in EE.

category imprint:

b.

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

Like in b. 62, of which the discussed bar is a literal repetition, in FE (→GE1,EE), there is no  restoring e3 in the 7th note of the run from the end. The patent mistake was corrected in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint:

b.

composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major

Arpeggio & appoggiatura in A1

Tied acciaccatura in FE (→EE)

Acciaccatura & arpeegio in GE

Our alternative suggestion
..

None of the first editions reproduced the arpeggio before the chord with grace note correctly. The version of FE (→EE) is most probably a distorted notation of A1: the vertical curved line marking the arpeggio was reproduced as a conventional one, which converted it into a tie of the grace note. In GE the wavy line of the arpeggio encompasses the L.H. e note, which is a mistake. In all editions, the grace note is slashed, contrary to A1, which is probably an inaccuracy or a routine revision. However, it does not influence the performance, since Chopin would often use slashed and non-slashed small quavers interchangeably. In the main text we give the undoubtedly authentic notation of A1; in turn, we suggest the reconstruction of the notation of [A2] as an alternative version on the assumption that GE1 reproduced all elements of the notation, except for the wavy line's range, correctly.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , FE revisions

b.

composition: Op. 28 No. 24, Prelude in D minor

..

In A (→FE,FC→GE) Chopin wrote 4 unnecessary (cautionary?) naturals in b. 55 in the sequence of thirds: before c4 (6th semiquaver), e3 (11th semiquaver), d3 (16th semiquaver) and a2 (18th semiquaver). In turn, he overlooked the necessary  restoring c2 on the 11th semiquaver in b. 56, which was also repeated in all the aforementioned sources. EE removed two superfluous accidentals, before c4 and d3, and enharmonically changed the Chopinesque orthography in three places:

  • the 12th semiquaver in b. 55 was written as e3-g3; consequently, the then unnecessary naturals before the next third were removed and a  restoring e3 was added in the subsequent one;
  • the same applies an octave lower in b. 56 (6th, 7th and 8th semiquavers);
  • the 11th semiquaver in b. 56 was written as b1-d2; consequently, the then unnecessary naturals before the next third were removed and a  restoring b1 in the subsequent one was added. This manner of notation reminds the one Chopin used before (first two octaves higher and then an octave higher).

category imprint:

b.

composition: Op. 28 No. 16, Prelude in B♭ minor

a3-b3-a3 in A (→FC,FE), contextual interpretation & EE

a3-b3-a3 in GE, contextual interpretation
..

In A (→FC,FE) there are no accidentals before the 13th and the 15th semiquavers. As the previous accidentals (in this case the  before a2) were then often considered to alter also the notes at the same pitch under an octave sign, it was necessary to determine whether the 4th group of semiquavers contains a3 or a3. The melodic and harmonic context as well as a comparison with similar b. 23 indicate that it should be a3 (twice), hence we add a  before the 13th semiquaver, as it was performed in EE. The version of GE, acceptable in terms of sound, is almost certainly inauthentic, since it is difficult to assume that Chopin would not have marked the return of a3 two notes apart.

category imprint: