mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Main-line changes

b. 29

composition: Op. 28 No. 16, Prelude in B♭ minor

..

The crossings-out and corrections of A allow us to reconstruct the initial version of the figuration in the 2nd half of the bar (analogous to b. 26): .

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A , Main-line changes

b. 29

composition: Op. 63 No. 2, Mazurka in F minor

f1-g1 in As

e1-f1 in FE (→GE,EE)
..

As in bar 21, in As the melodic voice is moved one second higher compared to the final version. The remaining voices are not written out, which hints – also as in bar 21 – at repeating the version of bar 17.

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

issues: Accompaniment changes , Main-line changes

b. 30

composition: Op. 25 No 1, Etude in A♭ major

..

The pencilled corrections visible in AI prove that originally, the 2nd half of this bar was identical as in bar 26.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Accompaniment changes , Main-line changes

b. 31-32

composition: Op. 63 No. 2, Mazurka in F minor

Dotted rhythm in As, probable contextual interpretation

Dotted rhythm in As, possible interpretation

Minim in FE (→GE,EE)
..

In As, only the upper R.H. voice is sketched, while the notation of the quaver in bar 31 is inaccurate and unclear – a spot of ink, which can be considered the note head, is located slightly below the middle of the stem of this quaver, which corresponds to the note a1, possibly a1 (assuming omission of ). The stem itself ends at the height of d1 (d1). The note head could also be a smaller dot under the staff, it could be interpreted as d1 or perhaps b. Without access to the original, however, it is difficult to say whether and which of these spots is significant at all, as they may be small ink chips or even spots unrelated  to the writing process. The pitch of the intended note would then be determined by the very end of the stem. Assuming that the lower voice written in bar 23 is repeated in this bar, we consider the two versions given as variants to be reasonable readings. The interpretation of the lower dot as the note b could mean that Chopin marked the final version of the lower voice here (c1-b-g), which leads to versions obtained by combining the variants given here with the corresponding variant of the note pertaining to the lower voice of the R.H. (this possibility seems the least likely, taking into account the degree of inaccuracy of the record – the lack of a stick, a natural, and, above all, a ledger line).

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

issues: Main-line changes

b. 32

composition: Op. 10 No 11, Etude in E♭ major

f3 in A

c3 in FE (→GE,EE)

Our suggestion
..

While proofreading FE (→GE,EE), Chopin changed the topmost note of the 1st chord from f3 to c3. We consider this change to be independent from the articulation, which was inaccurately reproduced in the editions. Therefore, in the main text we give a chord in the corrected by Chopin form and with authentic performance indications written in A (a slur and a wedge).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Main-line changes