mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in FE

b. 1-2

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

..

The slur embracing the bass motif, visible in GC (→GE), was probably overlooked by the engraver of FE1 (→FE2→EE1). It was then added in the proofreading of FE3 (→FE4), probably as a result of Chopin's intervention. The sign was also added in EE2.

 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 1

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

R.H. slur from minim in A

Slurs from minim in GE & FED

Different slurs in FE

Slurs from crotchet in EE
..

In the main text we include the slur for the L.H. added in a proofreading of GE – cf. an analogous slur in A in bars 91-92 – even though it is not entirely certain whether it was added by Chopin. The undoubtedly erroneously shortened slur in the R.H. in FE made the reviser of EE perform a similar change in the part of the L.H. The mistake of FE was corrected with an entry in FED, performed in pencil.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Annotations in FED , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 1

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

in A (→GE) & EE

No indication in FE

written into FES
..

The absence of a dynamic indication is most probably an oversight of the engraver of FE. The addition of  in EE was performed probably on the basis of a comparison with bar 91. In turn, the  indication written in FES, in spite of the fact that there are no reasons to question its authenticity, is, however, most probably only an ad hoc lesson comment, correcting the absence of the dynamic indication in FE. Therefore, we do not consider it to be an expression of a general change of the dynamic concept of this introduction. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Annotations in FES , Authentic post-publication changes and variants

b. 1-5

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

..

In FE (→GE1→GE2), the last quaver in the L.H. is a B1-G sixth in bar 1 and an A1-G seventh in bar 5. A comparison with the remaining sources of the orchestral part – FEorch (→GEorch), as well as MFrorch – proves mistakes of the engraver of FE. The correct text – a G1-G octave in both places – was introduced in EE and GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Errors repeated in GE

b. 1

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No title nor dedication in A

Scherzo à Mademoiselle la Comtesse Adèle de Fürstenstein in FC (→GE)

Scherzo à Mademoiselle Adèle de Fürstenstein in FE

La Méditation. Scherzo à Mademoiselle Adèle Fürstenstein in EE1 (→EE2)

Second Scherzo in EE3
..

A is devoid of both the title and dedication (it seems that the aim of the pencilled addition at the top of the 1st page is to identify the manuscript for ordering purposes). In the main text we give them after the complete version of FC (→GE), free from mistakes. FE (→EE1→EE2) omitted the title of nobility of the dedication's addressee; there are also a few mistakes in her name and surname. Moreover, EE1 (→EE2) includes an additional, inauthentic title 'La Méditation.' The collective title page of EE3 omitted both that addition and the dedication; however, the Scherzo was marked as second.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Dedications , Errors in EE , Authentic corrections of FC