mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Annotations in FEJ

b. 28

composition: Op. 27 No 1, Nocturne in C# minor

No teaching annotations

Signs pencilled in FEJ

Annotations in FES, literal reading

Annotations in FES, interpretation attempt

Practical suggestion with account taken of Chopin's entries
..  

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Differences in fingering , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEJ

b. 31

composition: Op. 10 No 5, Etude in G♭ major

d3 in A, FED, FEJ & FES

b2 in FE (→GE,EE)
..

b2 as the 5th note in FE (→GE,EE) is certainly a mistake of the engraver. The accuracy of the version with d3 written in A is confirmed with entries in all pupils' copies.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Errors in FE , Annotations in FED , Terzverschreibung error , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEJ

b. 32-33

composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major

..

In FES and FEJ there are visible deletions including bars 32-33. It is undoubtedly Chopin proposal of shortening and facilitating the Etude by eliminating the most difficult, virtuoso fragments. In FES there is also a B quaver at the beginning of bar 34, allowing for a smooth combination of bars 31 and 34. The note is absent in FEJ, although slightly later there is a difficult to decipher entry, perhaps related to the discussed abbreviation. The next, longer abbreviation – see bars 36-40. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEJ

b. 33

composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major

C-c in A (→FC→GE1, →FE→EE)

E-c in FED, FEJ, FES & GE2 (→GE3)
..

The published version of the last L.H. crotchet, a C-c octave, is most probably a result of a correction, which is revealed by the way it was written down in A – the bottom note is at the same pitch as the three E notes in b. 32-34 (as well as the ledger lines of the three D notes), while the ledger line placed above it differs in the thickness from the adjacent ones, which shows that it was added later. Therefore, it was initially an E-c sixth. In this situation, we consider the correction (performed in all three teaching copies bearing traces of being developed, i.e. FED, FEJ and FES) turning the octave back to a sixth to be Chopin's final decision (probably), presumably taken after multiple trials.
The fact that GE2 includes the version passed by Chopin to his pupils might indicate that the publisher had contact with a person from Chopin's circle, someone who knew about that correction – it seems rather unlikely that the reviser introduced such a change without any source indications. However, the octave was perhaps deemed mistaken because in this entire phrase, all the remaining c notes of the upper voice are coupled with an E in the lower one.
A similar situation can be found in b. 49. 

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

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Corrections in A , Chopin's hesitations , Annotations in FES , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEJ

b. 36-40

composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major

..

Same as in bars 32-33, in FES and FEJ there are visible deletions including bars 36-37. In this case, however, it is also the continuation that was deleted, until the end of bar 53 – see the note to bars 41-54. The abbreviation – certainly performed by Chopin – was probably supposed to enable less pianistically proficient pupils an amateur performance of the Etude. The fingering written in FES in bar 39, hence in the deleted bar, was probably written at another occasion (e.g. rewritten from another copy including Chopin indications.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEJ