mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Chopin's hesitations

b. 3-4

composition: Op. 25 No 2, Etude in F minor

  in AT

No signs in AW

  in CDP

  in GC (→GE), FE & EE
..

In practice, the differences in the range of the dynamic hairpins, in spite of being quite significant, are of minimal influence on the interpretation of these signs. Lack of hairpins in AW may be a proof of Chopin's inadvertence rather than hesitation.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Chopin's hesitations

b. 3

composition: Op. 25 No 2, Etude in F minor

..

Chopin hesitated whether to put cautionary flats before d1 and d3. The signs are included in the earliest source (AT) and in the published version, including GC (→GE), FE and EE. In turn, in CDP there is only the second of them, while AW included the first one (in the L.H.), yet Chopin eventually deleted it. Despite this fact, in the main text we give exactly this , returned in the later sources and, according to us, justified.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Chopin's hesitations , Cautionary accidentals , Deletions in A , Last key signature sign

b. 4

composition: Op. 10 No 2, Etude in A minor

..

Here, as well as in bar 12, yet not in bar 39, Chopin deleted semiquaver flags for the d1-a1 tritone in the lower voice in FEcor, thus changing its rhythmic value for a crotchet. However, the correction was not included in FE (→GE,EE), despite the fact that the cancellation of those changes was not explicitly marked:

  • in bar 4, next to the clearly deleted flags, there is a semiquaver-like sign, which may possibly be interpreted as a signal to return the flags; 
  • in bar 12 the flags' deletion was left without a commentary, yet in the margin a remark was deleted – not entirely legible – which probably concerned deletion of those flags.

It can be observed that the initial and, as it turned out, the final concept of the homogenous part of the R.H. in terms of sound and pianistics was subject to internal verification by Chopin until the very end of the Etude's publication process. See bars 3-4. 

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Chopin's hesitations

b. 4

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt III

No grace note in GC (→GE)

Grace note in FE (→EE)

Our variant suggestion
..

It is not clear whether Chopin wanted to have a grace note already in this bar – it appears without any doubts in bars 10, 22, 30 and analog. The ornament was deleted – most probably by Chopin – in GC, yet it remained in FE despite a few corrections and visible traces of development in pupil's copies. Due to these reasons, in the main text we suggest a variant solution.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Chopin's hesitations , Authentic corrections in GC

b. 6

composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major

Versions in AI

Version in A (→FE→GE,EE)
..

At the time of writing AI, Chopin was still looking for the best melodic continuation for the first, five-bar-long phrase. In the 1st half of the bar, after numerous deletions, he wrote two versions, out of which it was eventually the second one that was adopted, marked in this manuscript as ossia. The only version of the 2nd half of the bar was then changed in A.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Chopin's hesitations