Issues : Authentic corrections of GE

b. 1

composition: Op. 42, Waltz in A♭ major

in GE & EE

No marking in FE

..

Chopin added  in FEG (→GE), it is also in EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of GE , Authentic corrections of EE

b. 1

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

R.H. slur from minim in A

Slurs from minim in GE & FED

Different slurs in FE

Slurs from crotchet in EE

..

In the main text we include the slur for the L.H. added in a proofreading of GE – cf. an analogous slur in A in bars 91-92 – even though it is not entirely certain whether it was added by Chopin. The undoubtedly erroneously shortened slur in the R.H. in FE made the reviser of EE perform a similar change in the part of the L.H. The mistake of FE was corrected with an entry in FED, performed in pencil.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Annotations in FED , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 1-3

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

L.H. slur in A

Slurs in GE1 (→FEEE)

Slurs in GE2

Our alternative suggestion

..

Upon seeing the slur of A led over the part of the L.H., impossible to reproduce in print in this form, the engraver of GE1 (→FEEE) divided it into three parts to make it easier. According to us, the bottom slur is an addition by Chopin, who added a slur confirming the will expressed in A to embrace the part of the L.H. with one slur. In this context, it does not seem that Chopin would care about double slurs – the divided top slurs were most probably left in order to avoid an excessively complicated proofreading; it could have been a decision of the engraver or of Chopin. The added slur, although it is generally compliant with the slur of A, is, however, longer. Both versions make sense since the slur of A, led over the part of the L.H., reaches a, which is then repeated, while the slur of GE, running from the bottom voice, embraces the entire bass line, in accordance with the phrasing of the R.H. In this situation, in the main text we reproduce the slur of A and we suggest the slur added in the proofreading of GE1 as an equal variant.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 1

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

..

In A the  raising e2 to eis absent. It is difficult to explain this oversight other than by haste. The mistake was corrected already in GE1 (→FEEE,→GE2). In analogous bar 325 a correct sign is present in all sources.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of A , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 1

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

Slur from 1st note of bar in A & GE2

Slur from quavers in GE1 (→FEEE)

..

The later start of the slur could have been introduced by Chopin in the proofreading of GE1 (→FEEE) – cf. other motifs of this theme with identical rhythm, e.g. in bars 3 and 25. However, in the main text we start the slur from the 1st note of the bar, in accordance with A, since the authenticity of the version of GE1 is uncertain.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , Corrected slurs of Op. 21 in GE1