mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Terzverschreibung error

b. 3

composition: Op. 25 No 8, Etude in D♭ major

..

GE1 has a g as the bottom note on the 6th quaver. The comparison with the remaining sources, featuring e, proves that the Terzverschreibung error was committed here, yet, on the basis of GE1, one could also suspect an omission of .

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error

b. 3

composition: Op. 28 No. 22, Prelude in G minor

c1 in A (→FC,FE→EE) & GE2 (→GE3)

a in GE1
..

The version of GE1 featuring a instead of tied c1 is a patent mistake of the engraver, one of a few in this place.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions

b. 4

composition: Op. 10 No 11, Etude in E♭ major

No e in chord in A

Chord with e in FE (→GE,EE)
..

The origin of the additional e note present in the 1st chord in the bar in FE (→GE,EE) is unclear. Chopin could have added it at the time of proofreading FE, yet it seems more plausible that it was printed by mistake instead of g (Terzverschreibung) or B (the second possibility is indicated by the length of the arpeggio wave). Then the correct note was added, yet the erroneous one was not deleted, which is a characteristic error of engravers (the then printing technique made adding a note much easier than deleting it). Similar mistakes were often committed in other Chopin's works, e.g., in the Scherzo in B minor, Op. 20, bars 135 and 292, the Ballade in G minor, Op. 23, bar 171 and the Polonaise in A major, Op. 40 No. 1, bar 93. Cf. the remark concerning the Etude in G major, No. 5, bar 59.   

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections , Terzverschreibung error , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 4

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

A in A (→GE1→EE1)

A in A (→GE1→EE1)

F in GE2 (→GE3,FESB), FE & EE2 (→EE3)

F in GE2 (→GE3,FESB), FE & EE2 (→EE3)
..

We consider the version of A (→GE1) to be erroneous, which is indicated by the orchestral part – an F in cellos and double basses is both in the later version of AsI and in the voices of GE and FE. The correct version of FE almost certainly resulted from Chopin's correction, probably introduced still into the copy of GE1 serving as the basis for that edition – there are no visible traces of changes in print. The corrections present in GE2 (→GE3,FESB) and EE2 (→EE3) can be considered revisions on the basis of orchestral parts. In the case of GE2, Chopin's intervention is also likely; his participation in the preparation of that edition is generally questionable, yet it cannot be excluded to a limited extent.
In the basic version of AsI, which is an earlier edition of this orchestral introduction, neither of these versions can be used.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 4

composition: Op. 2, Variation IV, primitive version

e4, d4, c4 in AsI, total interpretation

e4, d4, c4 in AsI, total interpretation

e4, d4, c4 in AsI, probable basic version (no grace notes)

e4, d4, c4 in AsI, probable basic version (no grace notes)

3 times f3 in A

3 times f3 in A
..

This bar belongs to one of the few places in which Chopin, while working on this variation, changed the shape of the melody formed by the R.H. topmost notes (see also bars 11 and 24). The interpretation of the AsI notation presents some difficulties, since it is uncertain whether the 3 grace notes, which could have been added later, were supposed to complement the figuration or whether they were an original way to mark the change of concept of the topmost notes to the final version. The latter is supported by analogous bar 20, in which AsI includes the final version entered without hesitation. In either case, the notation of these grace notes is puzzling, since each is provided with a different form: a semiquaver, a slashed quaver, a quaver, respectively. Perhaps Chopin wanted to try out different forms of notation to see which one would suit him best.
Moreover, both manuscripts differ slightly in the version of the 2nd and 4th L.H. figures – see the note below.  

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

issues: Terzverschreibung error , Errors in the number of ledger lines , Accompaniment changes , Main-line changes