mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors resulting from corrections

b. 236-237

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

Continuous slur in A (→GE1, contextual interpretation)

Separate slurs in FE (→EE) & GE2
..

In GE1, the slur in bar 236, at the end of the line, indicates continuation, which, however, is not confirmed by the slur in bar 237. This ambiguous notation was interpreted contrary to the notation of A both in FE (→EE) and GE2. It is worth observing that the compliance of the slur of GE1 in bar 236 with A is a result of intense proofreading – originally, the entire line (bars 232-236) was provided with one-bar slurs. At the same time, the traces of the changes in bars 235-236 became so visible over time that GE1a was reengraved in this place. The oversight of the dashes marking the range of validity of the octave sign at the end of bar 236 was a side effect of this retouch. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , FE revisions , Corrected slurs of Op. 21 in GE1

b. 243

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

..

In FE the last chord has a quaver stem. The absence of rest, required if the chord was shortened, proves that it is a mistake, probably stemming from a misunderstanding at the time of implementing extensive proofreading of pitch and rhythmic values in bars 243-244.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections

b. 245-246

composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

2 separate slurs in A

Continuous slur in FE (→EE)

3 separate slurs in GE
..

In A, the slurs between these bars were being corrected – according to us, Chopin divided the initial continuous slur, which is indicated by the endings marking the division of the slur (the endings are clearly bolder, hence more important, final). However, the part of the initial slur that was supposed to be deleted was not eventually removed, hence FE (→EE) understood this correction the other way around (it is also likely that the correction was not there yet when FE was being engraved – see the description of FE). In the main text we give the slurs separated by Chopin. The versions of GE and GE1a, with the slur divided before the last sextuplet and after it, most probably resulted from mistakes or arbitrary revisions.
We discuss the issue of the additional slurs encompassing the sextuplets separately – see the previous note.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Errors in FE , Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 247

composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

..

In A, one can see two more deleted notes between the c3 and b2 quavers; in addition, the not entirely removed stem of the former was left untouched. Consequently, it probably caused the mistake of FE, in which one can see traces of removal of a redundant note, most probably c3, placed between d3 and c3. It is uncertain what the aim of the corrections of A was. Below we present a hypothetical reconstruction of a respective fragment with the removed notes having been revealed: . The notation can be explained as follows:

  • After d3, the first notes to have been written down were the three 'top' quavers c3-b2-a2, which means that Chopin wanted to start writing down the roulade without an octave sign already from c3; moreover, it means that he overlooked the c3-b2-d3 motif.
  • Chopin then changed his intentions as to the end of the octave sign, removed c3-b2, written down without an octave sign, and rewrote them an octave lower, planning to encompass them with an octave sign.
  • In that moment, he decided to add the c3-b2-d3 motif, or, which we consider more likely, he noticed that he had overlooked it. Therefore, he removed the 'bottom' b2 he had just entered and the following a2, before continuing with writing, starting from b2.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , Deletions in A , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 294-295

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur from c1 to a in A (→FE→EE)

No slur in FC & GE2 (→GE3)

Slur from c1 to b in GE1
..

According to us, the presence of an additional slur over the middle R.H. voice is related to the crossings-out visible in A related to the changes of layout: the voice was originally written on the bottom stave. The crossings-out separated the c1 minim from b, which probably prompted Chopin to enter a slur that would emphasise the course of the melodic line. This assumption is confirmed by the notation of the remaining three analogous places, which are devoid of both crossings-out and such a slur. It would be somewhat a special case of a mistake (unchecked effect) caused by a correction. Taking into account the above, in the main text we do not give that slur. It is also absent in FC: Fontana could have assumed that the slur, going through a crossed-out area, was also crossed out. Another possibility is that Chopin could have added it in A after having drawn up FC (it could also have been a common oversight). Anyway, Chopin did not add a slur upon seeing those bars in FC without one; however, he added a  hairpin. As he added a hairpin also in the three remaining analogous places, according to us, we can assume that it was that way of drawing attention to the sequence of the middle voice that he considered most proper and hence forwent additional slurs. The slur in GE1 is a result of a mistake: the engraver misinterpreted the tie of e1. See also the note on the curved lines in b. 295-297.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , Deletions in A