mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors repeated in EE

b. 60

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Semiquavers in AsI

Crotchet & demisemiquavers in A (→GE→FE,EE,FESB)
..

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

issues: Rhythmic errors , Main-line changes , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 61

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

FE (→GE,EE) are lacking in the  restoring d2 on the 6th note of the run. In EE it is also the  restoring e2 two notes later that is missing. In practice, these mistakes are of no major significance, since there is no doubt that we are dealing with a chromatic sequence. See also b. 205.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 62

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

In FE (→GE1,EE), there is no  restoring e3 on the 7th note of the run from the end. The patent mistake was corrected in GE2 (→GE3). The absence of a respective correction in EE is noteworthy, in which space for an accidental was left before this note. It is likely that the engraver forgot to insert the accidental intended by the reviser. The same in b. 206.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 67

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

..

As was the case with b. 41, in FE (→EE1) there is no  restoring g2 in the last octave in the bar. The mistake was corrected in EE2 (→EE3), where sharps were added next to both notes of that octave. The same version is in GE, which is also almost certainly an editorial revision, since these accidentals are absent in b. 274 and 300, which were marked in [A] in an abridged manner as a repetition of b. 41 and 67 and, consequently, could not differ from them.
In the main text we add only the necessary  next to g2.   

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 69

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

Chopin erroneously wrote the syncopated c2 note on the 2nd quaver in the bar as a double dotted crotchet. The mistake was only noticed by FESB, which tried to amend it by replacing the dots with a semiquaver, connected to the crotchet by a tie (in this place there is actually no tie, but this must have been the reviser's intention, which is proven by the ties in analogous situations in b. 77 and 89). Rhythmically speaking, the notation is correct; however, it is unclear due to the arrangement of the notes – the added semiquaver was placed not over the last quaver in the bottom voice, but right next to the crotchet. In the main text we suggest the same rhythmic values yet correctly arranged and beamed. Chopin used a similar notation in the Prelude in C minor, Op. 45, b. 7, 11 and analog.
Similar situations are to be found in b. 77 and 89. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Rhythmic errors , Errors of A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE