mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Annotations in FEJ

b. 58

composition: Op. 45, Prelude in C♯ minor

d1-d2 in FE (→EE1)

d1-d2 in GE, EE2 & FEJ
..

The flats lowering d1-d2 to d1-d2 is an error of the engraver of FE1 (→FE2,EE). It is proven by the version of GE and Chopin's hand-written correction in FEJ. The correct text was also introduced into EE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Annotations in FEJ

b. 59-60

composition: Op. 27 No 2, Nocturne in D♭ major

No octaves in  A (→GE→FE→EE)

Two octaves in FED and FEJ

Three octaves in FES

The editors' variant proposal
..

In the three teaching copies, the bass notes in  bar 59 were doubled with lower octaves. In FES the octave progression is consistently brought to the beginning of bar 60. In our opinion this means that Chopin considered the version with the octaves at least equivalent to the version of A (→GE→FE→EE), in which single notes appear.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Annotations in FES , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEJ , Bass register changes , Abbreviated octaves' notation

b. 69

composition: Op. 26 No 1, Polonaise in C♯ minor

'4' written into FEJ

No teaching fingering
..

The not too legible sign in FEJ, written in pencil, is most probably a digit indicating the 4th finger for e2. We do not give it in the main text, as the application of this fingering depends on including other entries in this copy, discussed separately, concerning the bottom notes of the chords on the 5th and 6th quavers.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FEJ

b. 69

composition: Op. 26 No 1, Polonaise in C♯ minor

No teaching fingering

Possible interpretation of annotation in FEJ

Another interpretation of annotation in FEJ
..

Two slashed dashes written – probably by Chopin – in FEJ pose difficulties at the time of interpretation. The most possible one is the deletion of the bottom notes of the chords on the 4th and 6th quavers. We include this possibility – due to the relation of the included signs to the doubts concerning the pitch of the bottom note of the last chord – in the note concerning this sound. Another possibility – less likely due to a significant angle of inclination of these dashes – is the interpretation of one or both dashes as fingering numerals. The ones would probably mean a simultaneous stroke of the e1-g1 third with the 1st finger. This kind of grip of two black keys was used by Chopin and marked a few times, e.g., in the Concerto in E minor, Op. 11, 2nd mov., bar 57 and the Prelude in A major, Op. 28 No. 7, bar 12. A possible choice of one of these possibilities is left at the discretion of the performer.

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

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FEJ

b. 71

composition: Op. 27 No 2, Nocturne in D♭ major

The lower slur of A, interpreted in context

The lower slur in GE and EE

FE

A possible interpretation of the slur in FEJ
..

When read literally, the lower voice slur in A embraces just five semiquavers,  up to g flat2, which is probably one of quite many inaccuracies to be found in that part of the manuscript. In GE (and EE) the slur embraces six semiquavers, and in FE it reaches up to the crotchet e flat2, which seems most natural in the light of slurring of analogous motifs of the upper voice. The mark added in FEJ may, but does not necessarily have to, be a slur.

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

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , EE inaccuracies , Authentic corrections of FE , Annotations in FEJ