mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors of A

b. 5-9

composition: Op. 26 No 1, Polonaise in C♯ minor

..

Both in bars 5 and 9 A does not include the  returning b on the 3rd beat of the bar. This patent inaccuracy was corrected already in FE1. Similarly in bar 34. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 5

composition: Op. 28 No. 8, Prelude in F♯ minor

..

In A there is no accidental before the 1st note in the 4th group of demisemiquavers, which should therefore be interpreted as a1. A comparison with analogous b. 1 proves Chopin's mistake; it is also the  before the next a2 that confirms a1 as the intended pitch of that note. The natural was added in FC and FE (→EE); however, it is absent in GE, which is probably an oversight of the engraver.
We omit the cautionary  before a2 in the main text.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Errors in GE , Cautionary accidentals , Errors of A , FE revisions , Fontana's revisions

b. 6

composition: Op. 25 No 1, Etude in A♭ major

..

In all manuscripts, FE and EE1 (→EE2) have no flats returning e2 and e1. This inaccuracy, so characteristic for Chopin, was corrected only in GE and EE3.

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

issues: EE revisions , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors of A

b. 6

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

Rhythm in A

Rhythm in GE

Rhythm in FE

Interpretation of FE suggested by the editors

Rhythm in EE

Interpretation of A suggested by the editors
..

All source notations of the 2nd half of the bar are erroneous or unclear, however, none of them can be corrected in a way that would not be questioned.

  • In A the 3rd beat of the bar includes 9 demisemiquavers.
  • In GE the introduction of a smaller font to write demisemiquavers does not have an impact on the rhythmic values and seems to be an arbitrary decision of the engraver: he could have noticed a difference between the size of note heads in the 1st and 2nd halves of the bar. It appears even more likely when considering his blunder in the first Tutti in the 1st movement of the Concerto; following that incident, he must have paid attention even to the slightest differences in the size of note heads.
  • The corrected notation of FE, which interpreted literally is at the very least unclear, could have been a result of that mistake. Since the proofreading of FE was probably performed on Chopin's demand, one has to consider what its intended result could have been. The suggested solution is both formally correct and very close to the genuine source notation.
  • It is hard to guess what the idea behind the actions of the reviser of EE was.

In this situation, we base the main text on the version of A which, in spite of its inaccuracies, seems to be the most reliable, as far as the authenticity is concerned. Out of two natural possibilities of correcting the mistake (changing two demisemiquavers to hemidemisemiquavers or deleting one of the dots extending the e1 quaver) we choose the second, giving a smoother development of the figuration introducing the main theme. We suggest a modified version of FE as an alternative version.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in GE , Rhythmic errors , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 6

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

..

Both autographs are lacking in the  raising a1 to a1. The mistake is also in EE, where it was repeated after the proof copy of FE. In the very FE Chopin added the overlooked accidental; the correct text is also in GE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE , Last key signature sign , Errors repeated in EE