mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 203

composition: Op. 42, Waltz in A♭ major

E suggested by the editors

e in FE, GE & EE
..

In analogous bar 31 Chopin changed e to E, both in FEG (→GE) and in the base text to EE. The fact of leaving e unchanged in bar 203 may be a result of Chopin's oversight of a relevant correction, therefore, in the main text we give E also in this bar. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 209

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No mark in A (→FC→GE1, →FE→EE)

Short accent in GE2 (→GE3)

Long accent suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we add a long accent after the authentic marks in analogous b. 69 & 77 and b. 201. The addition was also performed in GE2 (→GE3), in the form of a short accent.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 228

composition: Op. 19, Bolero

..

The difference in the sound of the last chord in bars 116 and 228 could have been unintended. It is indicated by lack of other harmonic differences between the exposition and reprise. Chopin could have, e.g. changed bar 116, forgetting about analogous bar 228; he was prone to such inaccuracies while performing proofreading. Therefore, we suggest here an alternative version, analogous to bar 116.

category imprint: Interpretations within context

issues: Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 234

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

b in FE (→GE,EE)

G-b suggested by the editors
..

A comparison with similar bars 226, 250, 577 and 585 reveals that the discussed bar is the only one without a tenth as the 5th quaver in the L.H. (there is only its top note). Since in two out of four mentioned places (bars 226 and 585), the bottom note of the tenth was added in the proofreading of FE (it is indicated by visible traces performed in print), Chopin could have left the single note in the discussed bar inadvertently. Such omission of a correction in one of a few repeated places would happen to him quite frequently (cf. e.g. the Etude in B minor, op. 25, no. 10, bar 87 or the Prelude in F minor, op. 28, no. 8, bar 17). Due to this reason, in the main text, we suggest adding the bottom note of the tenth, G, after the remaining bars.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 240

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

b1-g2-b2 in A (→FC→GE1, →FE→EE)

b1-f2-b2 in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The version of the majority of the sources, the 3rd chord with g2, does not raise doubts as such. However, they arise when compared with analogous b. 108, in which, after the corrections performed in A, Chopin eventually wrote a chord featuring f2. Actually, the corrections probably concerned the issue of rhythm; however, they guarantee that the b1-f2-b2 chord does not contain a mistake and was intended by Chopin. What is more, had the corrections been performed simultaneously with the revision of the entire manuscript, this version would have been the last one written by Chopin. Taking into account the above observations as well as the fact that it seems highly unlikely that such an insignificant difference could have been intentionally left behind, we consider the version with f2 an equivalent variant. This is the only version that was introduced in GE2 (→GE3).
There is a similar situation in b. 691.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Omitted correction of an analogous place