mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Rhythmic errors

b. 91

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

..

In FE (→EE), the duration of the 3rd semiquaver on the last beat of the bar is increased to a crotchet. Going beyond the beat of the bar, which makes no music sense, must be a mistake – cf. analogous bar 52 where the corresponding note is a quaver. In GE, the prolongation of this note was omitted, probably in order to avoid a troublesome, incomprehensible element of notation. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Errors repeated in EE

b. 92

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

..

In FE (→EE) the sextuplet was misprinted for demisemiquavers.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Rhythmic errors

b. 94

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

FE (literal reading) & EE3

GE1 (→GE2), contextual interpretation (possible interpretation of FE)

EE1 (→EE2) – probable interpretation of FE

GE3, contextual interpretation
..

The rhythmic notation of the 1st half of the bar in FE is unclear – according to the written rhythmic values, the group of 20 demisemiquavers begins after the e4 semiquaver, yet according to the arrangement of notes – after the quaver. In GE1 (→GE2), the arrangement of notes was changed; however, a mistake in the beam arrangement was committed, as a result of which both e4 notes are semiquavers; after correcting the mistake, the version of GE1 (→GE2) constitutes a possible interpretation of the notation of FE. The version of EE1 (→EE2) suggests another interpretation, where the first e4 is a quaver. According to us, it is more likely that it is the second version that corresponds to Chopin's intention, hence we give it in the main text. In GE3, another mistake was added to the mistake of the previous GE – a wrong arrangement of the quavers in the L.H. with respect to the R.H. EE3 reinstated the unclear notation of FE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors

b. 94

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

FE (→EE)

GE1 (→GE2)

GE3
..

In the main text, we give the unequivocal rhythm of FE (→EE). In GE1 (→GE2), the whole group of 6 notes was combined by mistake with a demisemiquaver beam, which was revised in GE3 by adding the digit 6 and moving the last quaver in the L.H. under f2. It resulted in a totally arbitrary and still erroneous version, since the sextuplet should be written with semiquavers in this place.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors

b. 95

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

Semiquaver in FE, possible interpretation

Quaver in GE & EE

Quaver suggested by the editors
..

In FE the bar opens with a semiquaver in the R.H. and a quaver in the L.H. It is a mistake, yet it is unclear which value is correct:

  • a quaver requires the following 3 semiquavers to be considered a triplet. Such a rhythm naturally develops the scheme used in the previous bars – both the starting point of the new motif on the 2nd quaver of the bar and the homogeneous semiquaver triplet movement are preserved. We give this version in the main text (we also mark the triplets), adopted in EE and GE, also due to association with the polonaise rhythm;
  • a semiquaver is less obvious in this context, yet one cannot rule it out – such a rhythmic diversification of a recently heard model absolutely corresponds to the Chopinesque style. Such an understanding of this rhythm is supported by the layout of the notes in FE, which proves that the engraver was convinced that he was dealing with four regular semiquavers.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors