mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Rhythmic errors

b. 89

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

As was the case with b. 69, in most sources (except FESB) the syncopated c2 crotchet is prolonged with two dots, which results in an excessive number of rhythmic values – 5 quavers in the bar. The mistake was noticed and corrected (graphically awkwardly) only in FESB.

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

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