mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic post-publication changes and variants

b. 84

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

No sign in GE (-FE→EE)

A grace note added in FES
..

The grace note C1 giving a sonically consequent ending of the progression of octaves was added by Chopin in FES. We regard it as an authorial improvement, and accept it into the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES , Authentic post-publication changes and variants

b. 91

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

a1 in FE (→GE,EE)

f1 in FEH
..

The variant written in FEH bears all the hallmarks of authenticity – pianistic and harmonic dexterity as well as the smoothness of the transition to the next bar (cf. a similar procedure in the variants added in the Nocturne in D major, op. 27, no. 2, bar 38). The manner of notation is also compliant with similar entries in the copies containing annotations whose Chopinesque origin is confirmed. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH

b. 93

composition: Op. 64 No 1, Waltz in D♭ major

6 notes in As, possible interpretation of FES

7 notes in AI, AII, AIII & A (→FE→GE,EE)

8 notes in FES, more likely reading
..

A possible Chopin variant, added probably with the pupil's hand in FES, can be interpreted in two ways, according to us. As the text of this source we adopt the most likely interpretation, in which the added note is supposed to be simply added to the printed ones. However, the slur may signalise which notes create an entire bar – a supposition supported by the undeniable authenticity of the version, included in As. See also bar 95, in which we discuss a possibility of continuing the variant.

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

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES , Authentic post-publication changes and variants

b. 97

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

 in A (→FE→GE,EE)

 written in FEJ
..

The change of dynamics from  to  was written by Chopin to FEJ.

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

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEJ

b. 119

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

Solo from 3rd quaver in FE (→GE,EE)

Solo from 4th quaver in FEH (possible interpretation)
..

FEH contains an ambiguous entry in the 2nd half of the bar – two almost vertical lines that can be interpreted as an emphasis on the entry of the solo part or, on the contrary, as a deletion of the 3rd quaver of the bar beginning the soloist part. It seems that the latter is supported by the diagonal cross over the 4th quaver, perhaps written as an additional marking of a new, shifted entry of the soloist. However, a possible variant gives rise to a number of doubts:

  • such marks do not allow for a credible handwriting analysis;
  • the meaning of the entries is uncertain – neither the lines, nor the cross, otherwise a very typical mark of Chopin-teacher, give rise to an unambiguous interpretation;
  • the person using FEH played the entire version for one piano, which is proven by entries in the Tutti (cf. e.g. bars 305-307). It is possible that the entry, even if it defines an authentic variant, was supposed, according to Chopin, to concern the version for one piano only.

Therefore, the given version must be approached with great caution as a possible variant of uncertain authenticity.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH