mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors resulting from corrections

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. 207

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

4 wedges after A & FE

5 wedges after GE (→EE)

Wedge on 2nd R.H. quaver and 3 L.H. wedges in FE

2 L.H. wedges in FESB
..

The additional wedge in GE is, according to the editors, most likely a mistake by the engraver of GE1 – there is no reason why Chopin's possible addition of marks should only apply to the L.H. In turn, omission of the last R.H. wedge in FE is probably a side effect of the correction of the pitch of this quaver – see the adjacent note. The absence of 3 out of 5 wedges in FESB is most likely the result of the carelessness of the engraver of this edition. In the main text we provide wedges according to A, taking into account Chopin's correction of the last quaver introduced in FE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Errors in FESB

b. 211-212

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

Slurs from d2 in A

Slurs from a1 in GE

Slurs from f2 in FE (→EE)

Our alternative suggestion
..

In the main text we give the slurs of A, since the changes appearing in GE and FE (→EE) are almost certainly a result of a routine, schematic interpretation of slurs by the engraver of GE1 and inaccuracies of FE.

The alternative interpretation of the slur beginning in bar 212 suggested by us comes from an observation that in A the beginning of the slur falls over a deleted note, probably f2, which may mean that after having performed the correction, Chopin did not control the correctness of the slurring.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections

b. 220

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

..

After adding the transitional g1 quaver on the 1st beat in A, Chopin remembered to remind us that on the 3rd beat g should be restored. However, he did it in an unfortunate manner by adding a cautionary  only to the 2nd quaver in the triplet, g. Consequently, the semiquaver at the end of the bar, when interpreted literally, is still a g1; as far as cautionary accidentals are concerned, a  to the G crotchet would be more justified, which appears earlier than the aforementioned quaver. This erroneous and illogical notation was repeated unchanged by GE, whereas a  restoring g1 was added only by EE2. We also add it in the main text, omitting the  to g.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors resulting from corrections , Cautionary accidentals , Errors of A , Errors repeated in GE

b. 224-226

composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

..

The correction to the last quaver in b. 226 visible in A – it was probably the e2-g2 third that was deleted – could be considered an improvement introduced due to a different bass sequence. However, the last quaver was also corrected in b. 224, where the bass is the same as in the previous two occurrences of analogous bars (b. 216 and 218). Therefore, it seems that Chopin was already certain of the concept of both versions of this quaver while writing b. 224; however, the versions overlapped in his mind, thus resulting in mistakes in both places.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , Deletions in A , Main-line changes

b. 225

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

a3-a3 in FE

b3-a3 in GE, EE & FEH (contextual interpretation)

a3-b3 in FEH, literal reading
..

The version of FE is almost certainly erroneous: both the missing interval of an octave before the topmost note of the passage and repetition of this note disrupt the regular melodic and pianistic nature of the figuration – cf. analogous phrases in bars 221 and 228-231. The correction of the text in the remaining editions was most probably introduced on the basis of comparison with the analogous bars. Moreover, a correction is written also in FEH; however, it was not the sixth but the seventh semiquaver that was changed, probably by mistake. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Annotations in FEH