mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic corrections of FC

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

b. 2-4

composition: Op. 25 No 4, Etude in A minor

No signs in A (→FE)

  in FC (→GE1)

  in EE

  in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The pair of   hairpins must have been added by Chopin in FC and base text to EE. Nothing indicates that Chopin could have wanted to resign from these indications – their absence in A (→FE) is almost certainly a result of haste and insufficient attention at the time of parallelly introducing corrections and additions in three Stichvorlage manuscripts. Similarly in bars 6-8.
Shortening the  sign in GE2 (→GE3) is most probably an editorial revision or a mistake of the engraver. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 5-13

composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor

, ,  in FC (→GE)

No indications in FE (→EE)

in b. 5 in FES
..

The contrasting dynamic indications in bars 5, 9 and 13 were most probably added to FC by Chopin, as were many other markings (e.g. dynamic hairpins or accents). However, one has to emphasise that these marks, although their shape is the same as of some undoubtedly Chopinesque ones (e.g.  in the autograph of the Scherzo in B minor, Op. 31, bar 25,  in the autograph of the Etude in A, Op. 25 No. 1, bars 9 and 22,  in the autograph of the Etude in F minor, Op. 10 No. 9, bars 29 and 33 or in the later autograph of the Polonaise-Fantaisie, Op. 61, bar 1), are also very similar to the Fontana ones. The fact that they could have been written in Chopin's hand is indicated by, e.g. their more delicate, as if pale notation – cf. the analogous markings in the Mazurka in B minor no. 2, written certainly by Fontana.
In bar 5  was added in FES, which, to a certain extent, confirms Chopin's intention to contrast the particular theme phrases, dynamically and probably also expressively.
See also bars 37-45. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 5-8

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

Pedalling in FC (→GE)

in b. 5 in FE (→EE)
..

In FE the pedalling of these bars is indicated in general terms with a  mark at the beginning of the phrase. Initially, a similar situation was in FC, in which, however, Chopin specified this aspect of performance by adding the remaining markings.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: No pedal release mark , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 6-8

composition: Op. 25 No 4, Etude in A minor

No signs in A (→FE)

  in FC & EE

  in GE
..

In the main text we give a pair of   hairpins added most probably by Chopin in FC and base text to EE. The shift of the  sign in GE was probably a result of division of the score into great staves – bar 7 falls at the end of the line.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FC