mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : FE revisions

b.

composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major

Arpeggio & appoggiatura in A1

Tied acciaccatura in FE (→EE)

Acciaccatura & arpeegio in GE

Our alternative suggestion
..

None of the first editions reproduced the arpeggio before the chord with grace note correctly. The version of FE (→EE) is most probably a distorted notation of A1: the vertical curved line marking the arpeggio was reproduced as a conventional one, which converted it into a tie of the grace note. In GE the wavy line of the arpeggio encompasses the L.H. e note, which is a mistake. In all editions, the grace note is slashed, contrary to A1, which is probably an inaccuracy or a routine revision. However, it does not influence the performance, since Chopin would often use slashed and non-slashed small quavers interchangeably. In the main text we give the undoubtedly authentic notation of A1; in turn, we suggest the reconstruction of the notation of [A2] as an alternative version on the assumption that GE1 reproduced all elements of the notation, except for the wavy line's range, correctly.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , FE revisions

b. 1

composition: Op. 42, Waltz in A♭ major

FE & GE

Cover title in FE

Title in EE
..

In the main text we give the title in the wording adopted in the headings of FE and GE. There are no doubts that such additions to the title as "grande" in FE and EE or "nouvelle" on the title page of FE were introduced for marketing purposes and on the initiative of the editors (sometimes perhaps also upon Chopin's consent). The Waltz published in Pacini's publishing house (FE) appeared as a part of a bigger album, "Cent-Et-Un" and was given a subsequent number – 68. As a result of this, the numbering of pages is continued: it starts with page 408 and ends with page 415. The title of Pacini's album was also used by the English editor, Wessel, undoubtedly for the purpose of advertising and trading, adding to the Waltz in EE the indication "Cent-et-Un." 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Various titles , FE revisions

b. 1-22

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

..

In GE the entire first Tutti is written in a font of a normal size, clearly against the notation of A and generally applied rules of publication of solo versions of works with orchestra. Therefore, we consider it a patent mistake, which we reproduce only in the version "transcription." One can wonder why nobody paid attention to it when preparing GE2, generally carefully revised on the basis of A. FE (→EE) did not repeat this error, which seems to be an editorial decision, perhaps consulted with Chopin.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , FE revisions

b. 1-3

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

L.H. slurs in FE (→EE) & GE1
..

The L.H. slurs added in bars 1-2, 2-3 in FE are almost certainly inauthentic. They were probably added due to the change of the layout: in the notation of A (→FC→GE), the R.H. part is situated on the bottom stave together with the L.H., as a result of which the slur over the notes naturally concerns both parts. In FE (→EE) the R.H. part was moved to the upper stave; hence the articulation and phrasing of the L.H. was no longer obvious. It could have been noticed by Chopin himself; however, it is difficult to assume that he could have added a slur suggesting a different phrasing of the L.H. An identical addition in GE1, which was not proofread by Chopin, perfectly illustrates the attitude of the engravers or revisers (in GE1 and EE in bars 1-2 it was also the R.H. slur that was adjusted to the L.H. slur, contrary to the Stichvorlagen). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , FE revisions

b. 1-3

composition: Op. 28 No. 2, Prelude in A minor

Arrangement of voices in As & A (→FC→GE)

Part arrangement in CGS

L.H. part arrangement in FE (→EE)
..

The two-part notation of the L.H. part, in which the recurring B-A-B-G motif is isolated, was already introduced in As and kept in A (→FC→GE). Unlike in As, in which all 3 bars are written like that (with the use of abbreviations), in the version prepared for print Chopin wrote only the first 2 bars like that; they must be regarded as a pattern for the next ones, already written down in a simplified manner. The adoption of that simplified notation in FE (→EE) already in b. 1-2 was almost certainly an arbitrary decision of the engraver, who, not having observed a possibility to apply the beaming used in GE and in our text (essentially tantamount to the Chopinesque notation), considered the authentic notation to be impossible to reproduce in print. The notation adopted in CGS indicates that the top voice on the bottom stave should be performed with the R.H., which is more convenient, particularly for smaller and less skillful hands. The authenticity of that notation is not confirmed; however, it seems likely – see the characterization of CGS.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: FE revisions