mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccurate note pitch in A

b. 42

composition: Op. 10 No 4, Etude in C♯ minor

AI, literal reading

AI, possible interpretation

FE (→GE,EE)

Our suggestion
..

When interpreted literally, AI has in the last group of semiquavers two notes different than in the published version: the 2nd semiquaver a (without ) and the 4th semiquaver A. According to us, it is a result of overlapping of inaccuracies and corrections, while the text intended by Chopin does not differ from the text of the remaining sources:  

  • at the time of writing a Chopin most probably had a in mind and he even started writing a  before this note. Instead of finishing the sign, he probably decided to change it to g, although the remade (?) note still is more similar to a/a;
  • the last semiquaver is probably written inaccurately, too low.

In the main text we give the version of FE (→GE,EE), completed with the cautionary  before g.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: Enharmonic corrections , Inaccurate note pitch in A

b. 50

composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major

..

The ninth semiquaver is placed somewhat too low in A so that FE1 has an a1 instead of b1 there. The error was corrected in FE2 (→FE3), the remaining sources also have the right text.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Inaccurate note pitch in A , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 52

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

f in A1, possible reading

g in CJ, CK (→CB) & EL
..

The last L.H. quaver in A1 is written inaccurately – one can see it as f or g. In the main text we give g, which was most probably present in [A2] (→CJ,CK→CB) and EL.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness

issues: Inaccurate note pitch in A , Inaccuracies in A

b. 65

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

d in As & AI

D in A (→FE→GE,EE)
..

We assume that out of two notes written in As at the beginning of bar 65, d is intended for this bar, whereas D – for bar 81, which, like the entire second half of this section, is not explicitly written in the draft. AI features d in both bars, whereas the version intended for print – D in both bars.
The discussed d looks actually like a c in As; such inaccuracies were very frequent in Chopin's drafts. Due to this reason, in order not to divert attention from genuine textual differences, we do not reproduce this notation even in the version transcription, since the correct pitch of the note is undisputed. Analogously in similar situations.

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

issues: Inaccurate note pitch in A , Bass register changes

b. 83

composition: Op. 24 No. 2, Mazurka in C major

The note f in A, FE (→EE) and GE2 (→GE3)

The note g flat in GE1
..

The first quaver f is written slightly too high in A, so in GE1 it was read as g flat. The mistake was corrected in FE (→EE), as well as in GE2 (→GE3)

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Inaccurate note pitch in A