mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Placement of markings

b. 5-22

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

Slur over pair of sixths in AI & A

Two slurs in FE (→EE)

Slur e1-d1 in GE1no2 & GE1op (→GE2op→GE3op)

Slur c2-b1 in GE2no2
..

Both slurs over the pair of minims in bars 5-6 and 21-22 in A are clearly longer than in bars 1-2 and 17-18. Similarly in AI (only in bars 5-6, since Chopin overlooked the slur for the second time), hence these are the slurs we give in the main text. Double slurs in FE are probably a result of Chopin's proofreading – initially, the engraver of FE combined with a slur only the bottom notes of the sixths, which led the composer to add upper slurs (the original state was preserved in the majority of GE). According to us, the correction is occasional and it rather confirms the importance of a slur over the notes than proves a change of the slurring concept. Similarly in bars 133-134 and 149-150.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Placement of markings , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 5-6

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

Tied crotchet f1 in A & GE2

Tied minim f1 in GE1

No crotchet f1 in chord in EE
..

The version of GE1 (→FE) generally indicates the same performance as the version of A – the f1 crotchet in the last chord in bar 5 is not tied, hence it is to be played, whereas it is the minim in bar 6 that is to be sustained. This kind of unclear notation must be a mistake, yet it is uncertain whether the mistake was committed at the time of engraving the text of A or at the time of implementing the proofreading ordered by Chopin. If we assume that only a part of the ordered corrections was implemented – a dot extending the minim in bar 5 and a longer tie were added, whereas f1 was not removed from the chord on the 3rd crotchet of the bar – the aim of a possible proofreading could have been the version given in EE. In the face of the above doubts, in the main text we present the correct text of A, whose authenticity is unquestionable. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Placement of markings , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , Partial corrections

b. 5

composition: Op. 63 No. 1, Mazurka in B major

 over f in AI & GE3

 under d1 in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)
..

In FE the mordent was placed under the d1-f1 third, which suggests that it concerns the bottom note, d1. It must be a mistake – cf. the text of AI and bars 13 and 73 – caused by a tendency to place marks, e.g. accents, staccato dots, slurs or certain ornaments ( and ) on the side of noteheads. In the case of ornaments and slurs, it can change their meaning, thus leading to a mistake, as is the case here (see also, e.g. the Polonaise in F minor, Op. 44, bar 10).
There is a similar situation in bars 7, 71 and 75.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Placement of markings , GE revisions , FE revisions

b. 7

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

Long accent in A (→FE)

Short accent in GE

No mark in EE2

Accent & dots in EE3 (→EE4)
..

EE2 does not have the accent added in EE3 (→EE4) together with staccato dots under the quavers (probably by analogy with bar 15). In GE a short accent was applied and moved over the crotchet. In the main text we preserve the notation of A (→FE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Placement of markings , Errors in EE , GE revisions

b. 7

composition: Op. 63 No. 1, Mazurka in B major

 over d2 in AI & GE3

 under b in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)
..

As in bar 5, the  having been placed under b resulted from a routine revision of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2). The misleading notation was corrected only just in GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Placement of markings , GE revisions , FE revisions