mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic post-publication changes and variants

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. 97

composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor

 in A (→FE→GE,EE)

 written in FEJ
..

The change of dynamics from  to  was written by Chopin to FEJ.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEJ

b. 119

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

Solo from 3rd quaver in FE (→GE,EE)

Solo from 4th quaver in FEH (possible interpretation)
..

FEH contains an ambiguous entry in the 2nd half of the bar – two almost vertical lines that can be interpreted as an emphasis on the entry of the solo part or, on the contrary, as a deletion of the 3rd quaver of the bar beginning the soloist part. It seems that the latter is supported by the diagonal cross over the 4th quaver, perhaps written as an additional marking of a new, shifted entry of the soloist. However, a possible variant gives rise to a number of doubts:

  • such marks do not allow for a credible handwriting analysis;
  • the meaning of the entries is uncertain – neither the lines, nor the cross, otherwise a very typical mark of Chopin-teacher, give rise to an unambiguous interpretation;
  • the person using FEH played the entire version for one piano, which is proven by entries in the Tutti (cf. e.g. bars 305-307). It is possible that the entry, even if it defines an authentic variant, was supposed, according to Chopin, to concern the version for one piano only.

Therefore, the given version must be approached with great caution as a possible variant of uncertain authenticity.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH

b. 120

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

B in GC & FE (→EE1)

B in GE & EE2
..

GC and FE (→EE1) do not include an accidental before the bass note, which makes it to be interpreted as a B. The version, present certainly also in [A], is given by us in the main text, with a cautionary . The version of GE, in spite of being most probably a result of a routine editorial revision (until this place the development is maintained in sharp keys and B is present also in the next bar), may be, however, considered an alternative authentic version in this case – according to Mikuli, Chopin added a corresponding  in a copy of his pupil, Friederike Müller-Streicher (information from the Mikuli edition of Sonatas, Kistner, Leipzig 1879).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: GE revisions , Authentic post-publication changes and variants

b. 153

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

FE (→GE,EE)

Arpeggio sign given by Mikuli

Variant given by Mikuli

Our variant suggestion
..

Both variants were given in the edition edited by Chopin's pupil, Karol Mikuli (Kistner, Leipzig 1879). Mikuli did not specify their origin, but defining the variant with the group of 6 semiquavers as "performance after Chopin" suggests memories and notes from the time of personal contacts between the editor and composer. It is also known that Mikuli had some insight into currently lost pupils' copies of Chopin's other pupils, e.g. Fryderyka Streicher-Müller (cf. the Sonata in B minor, op. 35, the 1st mov., bar 120). In the main text, we suggest the version of FE (→GE,EE), with a possibility of including the arpeggio of the third, indicated by Mikuli.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants

b. 162

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

..

The differences in the number and pitch of the notes following the first b1 are discussed in the previous note, together with rhythmic differences.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FED , Authentic post-publication changes and variants