mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Different values of chord components

b. 92-100

composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor

Semiquaver a in A

Dotted semiquaver a in FE (→GE,EE)
..

The rhythmic value of a in bars 92 and 100 – see bar 84.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Different values of chord components , FE revisions

b. 101-102

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Tied a2 in bar 101-102 in A (→FC,FE→EE) & GE3

No tied a2 in GE1

Tied a2 in bar 101 in GE2

Tied a2 in bar 101-102 – notation suggested by the editors
..

The version of GE1, which may seem to be a result of a serious misunderstanding or mistake, is probably a clumsy attempt at correcting the mistakes and inaccuracies of the notation of FC. For the copyist put a superfluous dot extending the d3 minim in the chord at the beginning of bar 101, whereas in the 1st chord in bar 102 he wrote the note head of the middle a2 in such a way that it is practically imperceptible (the fact that the note was to be there is proven by the extending dot). The above defects do not hamper the correct interpretation of the text if one is aware of A; however, having only FC at his disposal, the engraver of GE1 considered both dots in b. 101 as well as the one in b. 102, which seems to concern a non-existent note, to be mistakes. Eventually, he omitted the aimless (under these circumstances) curved line running from the a2 minim in b. 101 and leading nowhere. The reviser of GE2 also did not guess the correct text; it appears only just in GE3.
In the main text we change the original, one-part notation of the chord in bar 101 to a clearer, two-part one.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Different values of chord components , GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 131

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

Minim & semibreve in GC (→GE)

No inner notes in FE1

Minims in FE2 (→EE,FE3→FE4)
..

In the main text we give the undoubtedly correct rhythmic notation of the middle notes of the chord, transmitted by GC (→GE). Among the remaining versions, the first is erroneous, whereas the second – inaccurate (probably due to a misunderstanding of the notation of [A]). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Different values of chord components , FE revisions

b. 132

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

Dotted minim in GC (→GE)

Minim in FE (→EE)

Two-part notation suggested by the editors
..

The version of FE (→EE) is most probably inaccurate – cf. bar 131. In the main text we write the chord in the version of GC using two-part notation, in order to facilitate the interpretation and after the previous bars.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Different values of chord components

b. 331

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

In GE (→FE,EE) the e1 crotchet is provided with two augmentation dots, which could have been caused by the spot in A, resembling a second dot. It must be a mistake, since this e1 note is continued by the d1 quaver, falling on the 4th quaver in the bar. In FESB this note was placed on one stem with the g1 quaver, which changed its value to a double dotted quaver. It was probably an attempt at correcting the excessive rhythmic value of this note.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Different values of chord components , Errors in GE , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE