mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Last key signature sign

0
b. 33-48

composition: Op. 63 No. 3, Mazurka in C# minor

..

In [A] (→FE1→GE) Chopin wrote the middle section of the Mazurka in a key signature with four flats, although the prevailing key is D major, while from bar 41 even G major. Chopin corrected the key signature in FE2 (→EEW). Such discrepancy between the key signature and the prevailing key happened to Chopin in the Mazurka in G minor, Op. 33 No. 1, which both in the manuscripts and the editions is written down with 4 sharps. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Last key signature sign

b. 34-36

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

..

A has no  rising c1 to c1 in bars 34 and 36. The obvious inaccuracy of Chopin's notation was corrected in FE (→GE1) in bar 36, and in the remaining editions in both bars.

Instances of omitted essential naturals next to notes C in different octaves occur in A repeatedly in the whole section (bars 33-40).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Omission of current key accidentals , FE revisions , Last key signature sign , Inaccuracies in A

b. 34

composition: Op. 25 No 9, Etude in G♭ major

No accidentals in sources (literal reading—C-c)

Contextual interpretation suggested by the editors (C-c)
..

Lack of the naturals raising C-c to C-c is almost certainly Chopin's mistake, despite the fact that this kind of oversights of signs introducing alterations are not frequent (yet they are to be found in, e.g., the Etude in F minor, No. 2, bar 56). It could have seemed that the C-c octave did not require naturals due to the following reasons:

  • on a number of occasions, Chopin was not sure whether the last or the following it key signature is valid or not, particularly when their number was significant (cf., e.g., the Etude in G minor, No. 6, t. 7-8).
  • the chromatic progressions are characteristic for the melodic structure of a number of fragments of the Etude, e.g., in bars 1-3, 10, 23-24 (in the latter they are also in the harmonic structure). The last such fragment are bars 32-36;
  • the harmonic progression at the transition between bars 34-35 was probably supposed to refer to the progression in bars 32-33, where there is C-c. Therefore, the psychological mechanism of overlooking the naturals could have been similar to the one that was responsible for omissions of the signs of the current key – here is the signs of the current harmonic context that would have been omitted.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , Last key signature sign , Errors of GC

b. 35

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

..

JC has a cautionary  before A1 on the 6th quaver of the bar.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Cautionary accidentals , Last key signature sign

b. 35

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

..

A has no  rising c to c. The gap was filled in already in FE1. In all sources a  is superfluously repeated next to the demisemiquaver c2; A and EE also have  next to c1 at the end of the arpeggio.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , FE revisions , Last key signature sign