mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Partial corrections

b. 57

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

g3 in JC & EF

e3-g3 in PE
..

PE has the e3-g3 third as the 2nd quaver of the bar. Admittedly, the version is acceptable, as far as the sound and piano performance are concerned, yet the e3 note burdens and blurs unnecessarily the melody's line; therefore, a misreading of [A] or a proofing (adding the correct note without deleting the wrong one) seem to be much more probable.  

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Terzverschreibung error , Errors in PE , Partial corrections

b. 65

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

No b1 in JC & EF

b1 in PE
..

From the piano performance's point of view, the four-note chord of PE is awkward (without using pedal, almost impossible to perform). Moreover, the b1 note also does not contribute to the harmonic content and burdens the chord's sound rather unnecessarily. Due to those reasons, we consider it to be erroneous – most probably it was left after an inaccurate proofing: the correct note (d2) was added in order to change b1 into d2, but the wrong one (b1) was not deleted. This kind of "half" proofings can often be met in first editions of Chopin's works, cf., e.g., the Ballade in G minor, Op. 23, bar 171 or the Scherzo in B minor, Op. 20, bars 135 and 292. Cf. also bar 15.

 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in PE , Partial corrections

b. 78-79

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

 i  in A

> &  in GE1 & EE

 &  in FE

 &  in GE2

Our alternative suggestion – 
..

In the main text we give dynamic markings of A, which are unquestionable, as far as sources and music are concerned. In this context, the markings of GE1 (→FE →EE) – two subsequent  signs – are illogical to such an extent that one could suspect a mistake. In fact, taking into account the fact that  in bar 79 is poorly visible in A, it seems to be highly likely that  in this place resulted from an erroneous interpretation of A (the shape of the sign in A is one of the numerous arguments for Chopin's haste, increasing as he was writing A). In turn,  added at the beginning of bar 78 may be interpreted as an attempt to rectify the mistake from bar 79 – Chopin may have wanted to move  to bar 78, where it would not collide so strikingly with its original, and perhaps the only, dynamic concept, written in A. It would be an example of unfinished proofreading, in which a new sign was added without having deleted the old one. We give the version, perhaps intended by Chopin, as an alternative suggestion.
We consider the sign visible in A at the beginning of bar 78 – same as in bar 70 – to be a long accent. In this case, it was reproduced in GE1 as a short accent, whereas in GE2 – as a short . It is unclear how the sign appeared in EE, being absent in FE. The accent was most probably overlooked in FE, whereas in EE it was added by analogy with bar 70 – the hairpin is longer there, but the reviser could have been impelled to shorten it by the absence of a note on the 3rd beat of the bar. A strong argument for such an explanation is the revision of EE in bar 70, going in an opposite direction, since it added  drawn from here.

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

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , Inaccuracies in A , Partial corrections

b. 83-84

composition: Op. 10 No 5, Etude in G♭ major

..

Initially, Chopin wrote the part of the L.H. in A one octave too high. He also committed a mistake at the time of writing the part of the R.H. – he overlooked the a1-a2 octave and noticed the error only when he was writing the fourth consecutive erroneous octave. After adding the correct notes, the erroneous ones remained not deleted, yet in spite of that the engraver correctly understood the notation and the text of FE (→GE,EE) is correct. 

category imprint: Corrections & alterations

issues: Corrections in A , Partial corrections

b. 98

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

No c2 in A & GE2

c2 in GE1

c2 tied in FE (→EE)
..

An additional c2 note could have been added by Chopin in the proofreading of GE1 (→FE→EE). The melodic line of the accompaniment, where the second quaver of each pair is higher than the previous dyad or chord, suggests that the note was probably to be sustained, which was then performed in the proofreading of FE (→EE). It cannot be excluded that the additional c2 was printed in GE1 by mistake and left unnecessarily after having added the correct note, a1 (a Terzverschreibung error). The tie of this note, added in the proofreading of FE (→EE) and eliminating its repetition, would be then a "simplified correction," which would happen in Chopin's works, e.g. in the Polonaise in C minor, Op. 40 No. 2, bar 125. GE2 restored the version of A.

In the main text we give the version of FE as intended or accepted by Chopin. The version of A may be considered an equal variant, whereas the version of GE1 is almost certainly erroneous. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of GE , Partial corrections