mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic post-publication changes and variants

b. 59

composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor

Crotchets in A (→GE→FE)

Crotchets in EE (without the second slur)

Quavers entered in FES

Quavers and a slur in FED
..

In the main text we give the version written into FES and FED. The remaining sources have the version as in bar 3 and analogous bars. That type of adding variety to the melodic line is very characteristic of Chopin. He introduced similar changes, also as later corrections, in Mazurka in C major no. 2, bars 102-103, and also in other works.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Annotations in FES , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Main-line changes

b. 59

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

Slur (tenuto?) in FE

No slur/tie in GE

Tie to c3 in EE

Arpeggio written into FES, possible reading

Repeated c3 in FEH, literal reading
..

The meaning of the curved line between the c3 notes is unclear, particularly in FE where it does not reach the quaver. Chopin may have thought of a tenuto-slur; however, a different misunderstanding of the Chopinesque notation also cannot be excluded. In the main text, we omit this curved line, since, according to us, the prescriptive interpretation of the mark as a tie is erroneous.

The passage filling 5 quavers was added in FES on the margin, next to the line containing bars 59-62, without indicating the place it should be inserted in the printed text. According to us, there are two such places – the 1st half of bar 59 (as an A major passage) or 5 last quavers in bar 61 (as an A minor passage). The latter seems to be more likely due to a similar nature of the passage written in this bar in FEH, hence we adopt the variant placed in bar 61 as the text of FES.

The literal interpretation of the variant of FEH excludes a simultaneous application of the interpretation of the passage of FES discussed above. Another interpretation of the entry in FEH – see the note in the further part of this bar.    

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Tenuto slurs , Annotations in FEH

b. 59

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

No extra notes in FE (→GE,EE)

3 notes in FED

4 notes in FEH, possible interpretation
..

Interpretation of the draft notation in FED is hypothetical to a significant extent – it is only 3 note heads that are written on the ledger lines, without stems or beams. Therefore, it is unknown in which rhythm they should be performed; their pitch is also unclear, since only the middle one is a distinctly written c3 note. We present the most likely interpretation, based on the following premises:

  • the draft nature of the entry suggests an obvious, easy-to-remember figure, e.g. repeated notes;
  • if the person entering these notes wanted them to be performed still before the end of the passage in the L.H., he or she could have easily written them in the corresponding place (earlier). In turn, it was difficult to fit them still before c3 on the 5th beat of the bar, but already after the minim in the L.H. It supports the placement suggested by us;
  • a variant implementing most likely a similar idea, written with quavers, is to be found in FEH.

According to us, such a placement of repeated c3 notes – directly before the triplet that ends the bar – is not excluded also by the notation of FEH, which we suggest as an alternative interpretation of that source. Naturally, none of the variants described in this note can be linked with the literal reading of the entry in FEH which occurs in the 1st half of the bar. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH

b. 60

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

No ornament in FE (→GE,EE)

Arpeggio sign in FEH

Our variant suggestion
..

Taking into account a high likelihood of authenticity of other entries in FEH in this fragment, cf. bar 57, 58, 59 and 61, we consider this entry to be most likely authentic and include it in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH

b. 61-62

composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor

 

A slur added in FES
..

The line added in FES may be a slur, yet it is not certain. The sign may be a teaching hint rather than a suggestion of alternative phrasing. The traces of removing a longer slur (extending from the semiquaver f sharp1 to g1 in bar 62) in A  prove that Chopin's decision was a well-thought-out one. Therefore we do not take the entry of FES into consideration in our main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Corrections in A , Annotations in FES , Authentic post-publication changes and variants