mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors resulting from corrections

b. 336

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

c2 in A & GE2

b1 in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

According to us, the version of GE1 (→FE→EE) is a result of a misunderstanding of the sense of the proofreading in the previous bar. The engraver probably considered the c2 crotchet to be related to the trill and constituting its ending. Since in the proofreading a change of the trilled note was marked, he assumed that the crotchet is also to be corrected.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors resulting from corrections , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 337

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No indication in AsI & FE

Instrumantation tip in A (→GE→EE,FESB)

Instrumantation tip in A (→GE→EE,FESB)

Instrumantation tip after A (→GE→EE,FESB)
..

In the main text we provide the indication concerning instrumentation written as a full word, as it is in A. In GE (→EE,FESB) the Fl. abbreviation was used, which we do not regard as an independent variant. The absence of the indication in FE could be attributed to the changes entered into the basis for this edition – see the adjacent note. The possibility that Chopin could have omitted this piece of information on purpose is less likely – although in the version of FE the bottom voice of the R.H. octaves does not correspond to any instrumental part, the top voice remains an equivalent of the flutes. One can even assume that this indication is all the more justified, since in this version it was the flute voice that was reinforced at the expense of the other instruments that were not included in the piano reduction.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 342

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No slur in AsI

Slur in A (→GE→FE,EE)
..

According to us, the slur in A (→GE→FE,EE) is an element of an earlier version of this place left by inattention or simply a mistake. This is supported by the following arguments:

  • problematic meaning of this slur, placed under the staccato dots – Chopin would often use dots under a slur to mark softly separated portato articulation, e.g. in bars 16, 32, at the end of bars 62 and 63 or in bars 259, 264 and 268; however, they are always between the notes and the slur. The notation used in this case rather points to the intention of replacing the slur with dots;
  • an individual nature of this slur – none of the three similar places (bars 346, 356 and 360) contain a slur;
  • the absence of a slur in AsI, although Chopin entered a number of various performance markings into this four-bar section, including a few in this bar (a R.H. slur, L.H. staccato, dynamic hairpins).

Due to these reasons, in the main text we omit this slur.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections

b. 370

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

g2 in A (→GE→FESB,EE1→EE2)

g2 in AsI, FE & EE3
..

The version of A and of the majority of the editions with g2 as the 12th semiquaver must be erroneous – Chopin forgot to cancel the  put to g2, the first note in the bar. This is evidenced by:

  • g2 present in AsI; admittedly, there is no  in that version, yet it is not necessary, since the 1st semiquaver in the bar is written down as f2, and not g2;
  • a natural added to this note in FE, probably by Chopin;
  • g1 appearing twice on the 2nd beat of the bar in the L.H. – if Chopin wanted to have g2 in the R.H. in spite of this, he would not have hesitated to mark it clearly.

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

issues: Errors resulting from corrections , Errors of A , Enharmonic corrections , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 401

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

No c2 in chord in A (→GE)

c2 in chord in FE (→EE)
..

An additional c2 in the chord must be a mistake, since the note does not result from the link to the previous chord; it unnecessarily precedes the next, accented minim. We are most probably dealing with an unfinished proofreading of a major mistake – the traces of removing c3 visible in this place in FE may indicate that it was the 1st chord from the previous bar, c2-f2-c3, that was printed here in the first place. While proofreading this mistake, both missing notes were added (f1-a1), but it was only c3, going beyond the target chord, hence easier to remove, that was deleted.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections