mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic post-publication changes and variants

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

b. 175

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

 in A (→FE,EE,GE)

 in FEJ

 in FES
..

The entry in FES is certainly made with Chopin's hand. The addition in FEJ is slightly less characteristic, yet it most probably also comes from Chopin. In spite of that, according to us, the change of the dynamics of the ending is to be considered to be an authentic variant and not a definitive withdrawal from the original concept.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

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

b. 197

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

Continuous slur in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Separate slurs in FED & GE3
..

The unbroken – in spite of the rest – slur of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2) must be a remaining part of the original version of the rhythm (with semiquavers without rest). The need to separate the first two notes from the following semiquavers was confirmed by Chopin with additional marks written in pencil in FED – a slashed line, underlining the significance of the rest (also in bar 201), as well as a slur over the first two semiquavers. Taking that into account, in the main text, we divide the slur, adjusting the phrasing to the rhythmic notation.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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