mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Partial corrections

b. 346

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

..

In GE1 the semiquaver opening the characteristic main motif of this movement of the Concerto, recalled here, is A-f. This patent mistake, corrected both in FE (→EE) and in GE2, is probably a result of an unfinished proofreading of A, erroneously printed in this place – the correct note was added, yet the erroneous one was not removed. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 430

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

c2-es2 third in FE (→GE1,EE)

c2 & e2 in GE2

e suggested by the editors
..

In the editors' opinion, the c2-e2 third in FE (→GE1,EE) is most probably a mistake of the so-called "partial proofreading" – while proofreading the erroneous c2, the engraver added the correct note (e2) but did not remove the erroneous c2. The arbitrary version of GE2 makes it possible to avoid an unjustified pianistic complication. However, it is highly unlikely that it could have corresponded to Chopin's intention.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Partial corrections

b. 570

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

​​​​​​​on 2nd beat in FE (→EE)

​​​​​​​on 2nd & 3rd beat in GE
..

The additional ​​​​​​​ must be a mistake of the engraver of GE (perhaps an unfinished correction – following the erroneously printed mark on the 3rd beat of the bar, the correct indication was added, yet the wrong one was not removed.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Partial corrections

b. 618-619

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

a1 tied in FE (→GE,EE)

a1 repeated, our suggestion
..

The lack of autograph impedes the unravelling of the actual meaning of two ties present in FE (→GE,EE). In a similar melodic and rhythmic context, appearing in Chopin's pieces on a number of occasions, a note falling on a strong beat of bar is always played (repeated) – cf. e.g. bars 220-221 and 571-572 or 606-609. Therefore, it seems highly likely that in this case Chopin also wanted to repeat a1 at the beginning of bar 619. Traces of corrections visible in FE in bar 619 point to misunderstandings at the time of implementing proofreading as a possible reason for the unintentionally left tie of that note.
In EE, the notation of bar 619 was arbitrarily completed with rests. 

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Partial corrections

b. 686

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

c1-c1 in A (→FC→GE)

c1-b in FE

b-b in EE
..

The version of FE is almost certainly erroneous, in spite of the fact that it was proofread; originally, in FE this bar was identical to the next one, yet it was only the 3rd note that was corrected, perhaps due to misunderstanding Chopin's proof entry or due to an incomplete implementation of the proofreading. EE repeated the version of FE from before proofreading, which, unless it is an extraordinary coincidence, means that it was a change introduced in the last phase of proofreading.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE , Partial corrections