mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic corrections of GE

b. 339

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

in AsI & A

No ornament in GE (→FE,EE)
..

It is difficult to say how the  mark was overlooked by the editions. The most likely explanation would be an oversight by the engraver – the mark in A is small and squeezed in between the beam and the Clarin[etto] indication – if it were not for the fact that this ornament is absent in the sources of the orchestral part, in AsI and in GEork (→FEork). In the main text we give the published version, since:

  • Chopin could have removed  or accepted its absence in GE1, which was probably controlled by him.
  • Chopin could have accepted the absence of the ornament in FE1, which he certainly proofread (probably both the copy of GE1 that served as the basis and the edition itself). This is all the more likely, since in the two preceding bars the composer introduced an important change to the R.H. part.

The version with an ornament, undoubtedly authentic, can be considered an equal variant.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 340

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

b1-d2 in A & FESB

b1-d2 in AsI & GE (→FE,EE)
..

The version of A featuring b1 must be Chopin's mistake, which in this case could be explained by score-like thinking – in the voice of the 2nd clarinet implementing the bottom line of the semiquavers, a  restoring b is unnecessary. The accidental, present in AsI, was then added already in the stage of proofreading GE (→FE,EE), perhaps by Chopin. It is the engraver of FESB that is to blame for the absence of this accidental in this edition.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 344

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

Dotted rhythm in A

Quavers in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The dotted rhythm in A is the original version (cf. analogous bar 20), left here by Chopin, perhaps unintentionally. Therefore, the quavers in GE (→FE→EE) may be a result of Chopin's proofreading, although the absence of visible traces of performing changes in print allows us to consider a possible mistake of the engraver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of GE , Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 345

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

Slurs in A, contextual interpretation

Slurs in GE

Slurs in FE (→EE)
..

In A the slur under the motif in the R.H. ends on a, whereas the corresponding slur in the L.H. – on B. A comparison with the slurs in the next bar allows to consider the first of them to be inaccurate. The slurs in GE can be a result of Chopin's proofreading, since leading the slurs to the end of the motifs is more natural here – cf. the authentic slurs e.g. in bars 4-6. In turn, an earlier beginning of the slurs in FE (→EE), being contrary to the structure of the motifs, cannot come from Chopin and is probably a result of an erroneous interpretation of the slurs of GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 346

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

Slurs in A

Slurs in GE (→FE→EE)
..

The slurs in this and in the previous bar in GE1 were probably proofread by Chopin; however, the slur in the R.H. was left without correction here. It was considered a mistake both in FE (→EE) and in GE2, by extending this slur after the remaining ones. We also consider it to be an inadvertence, hence in the main text we give slurs embracing the entire motif in both hands.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Authentic corrections of GE