mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Foreign hand additions in manuscripts

b. 106

composition: Op. 29, Impromptu in A♭ major

..

We add the cautionary e3 flat. The sign was already added in GE. A has here an incorrect, unjustified natural written by a foreign hand. In GE2 (→GE3→GE4) a flat was also added next to e, the 10th quaver in the L.H. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Foreign hand additions in manuscripts , Cautionary accidentals

b. 113

composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor

..

The cautionary  to a2 visible in FC was added by the reviser of GE. The accidental does not seem necessary here, and the other editions did not add it.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Foreign hand additions in manuscripts

b. 118

composition: Op. 29, Impromptu in A♭ major

..

A has a natural next to the 10th quaver in the L.H. written by a foreign hand.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Foreign hand additions in manuscripts , Cautionary accidentals

b. 119-123

composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor

..

In the main text we add cautionary naturals to a1 in bars 119, 121 and 123. The first two were also added in GE on the basis of the pencil additions to FC by the reviser of that edition.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Foreign hand additions in manuscripts

b. 136-137

composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor

New slur from d2 in FC (→GE)

New slur from d2 in FC (→GE)

New slur from c2 in FE (→EE)

New slur from c2 in FE (→EE)
..

In FC, the continuous slur written initially by the copyist, encompassing the last 5 bars, was divided into two slurs by Chopin between the 2nd and 3rd beats of this bar. We give this version, undoubtedly Chopinesque and present in the principal source, in the main text. On the other hand, the authenticity of the FE (→EE) version is uncertain, since one can easily imagine that the Chopinesque notation, either in [A] or in the proof copy of FE, could have been misinterpreted. Chopin could have, e.g. written the following, inaccurate slurs: , which in FE were interpreted in accordance with the tendency to adjust marks to regular rhythmic structures, e.g. bars, typical of engravers.
The crossed-out fragment of the initial, continuous slur visible in FC comes from the reviser of GE1, who thus clarified the slurring correction entered by Chopin.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Foreign hand additions in manuscripts , Authentic corrections of FC