mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Partial corrections

b. 5-6

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

Tied crotchet f1 in A & GE2

Tied minim f1 in GE1

No crotchet f1 in chord in EE
..

The version of GE1 (→FE) generally indicates the same performance as the version of A – the f1 crotchet in the last chord in bar 5 is not tied, hence it is to be played, whereas it is the minim in bar 6 that is to be sustained. This kind of unclear notation must be a mistake, yet it is uncertain whether the mistake was committed at the time of engraving the text of A or at the time of implementing the proofreading ordered by Chopin. If we assume that only a part of the ordered corrections was implemented – a dot extending the minim in bar 5 and a longer tie were added, whereas f1 was not removed from the chord on the 3rd crotchet of the bar – the aim of a possible proofreading could have been the version given in EE. In the face of the above doubts, in the main text we present the correct text of A, whose authenticity is unquestionable. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Placement of markings , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , Partial corrections

b. 9

composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major

Dotted crotchet in A (→EE,GC→GE)

Crotchet in FE
..

The dot extending g1 was probably being erased in FE. According to us, it could have been related to moving it to the right place, as the mark of the sign is visible below the note head and not above it, as it should be according to the rules. As a result of a misunderstanding or forgetfulness, the dot was not printed at the correct pitch.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Partial corrections

b. 10

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

No marking in FE (→EE) & GE3

in GE1 (→GE2)
..

The additional  in GE1 (→GE2) must be a mistake – the engraver of GE1 saw ​​​​​​​ in FE in the antepenultimate bar in the line and placed that indication in a similar manner in his edition; however, he forgot that the first line in GE1 has one bar less. After discovering the mistake, the mark was added in the right place (in bar 9), yet the erroneous one (in bar 10) was not removed either due to inadvertence or its innocuous nature.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Partial corrections

b. 15

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Chord without c1 in JC & EF

Chord with c1 in PE
..

From the harmonic point of view, the four-note chord in PE is absolutely possible. However, the natural character of voice-leading in the triad version of JC and EF encourages to suppose that the version of PE may be erroneous. The engraver of PE could have taken an accidental ink spill on the intersection of the stem and ledger line for a note. The half correction also offers food for thought: adding the right note without deleting the wrong one. Such situations can often be found in Chopin's prints, which stems from the fact that adding a new note head was technically much easier than deleting the old one. In this case, it is c1 which was mistakenly left (cf. bar 65). For those reasons, in the main text we adopt the chord without c1. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in PE , Partial corrections

b. 25

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

E1-G1-E-G in A, literal reading

G1-B1-E-G in A (probable interpretation) & GE2

G1-E-G in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

The chord written in A, although acceptable from the harmonic point of view, is almost certainly erroneous due to its sonically unjustified piano complication. However, it remains unclear which chord Chopin meant:

  • G1-B1-E-G seems to be most natural: an octave transposition of chords is a popular means of the virtuoso concert texture (cf., e.g. the 3rd mov., bar 69 or 511-513). We would then be dealing with Chopin's typical Terzverschreibung error. This is how it was interpreted in GE2 and we suggest this interpretation as the text of A;
  • G1-E-G – a lighter chord due to a very low register (cf. the 3rd mov., bar 77). In this case it is also a Terzverschreibung error that would have to be taken into consideration: Chopin could have written the correct chord and then consider the bottom note to be a B1 and "correct" the alleged mistake, by adding a note placed a third below (the top bottom note seems to have been added later). Such a scenario assumes, however, that two mistakes were committed: an erroneous evaluation of the pitch of the written note and the fact of leaving it, in spite of the fact it was supposed to be removed (cf. the Etude in G major, Op. 10 No. 5, bars 83-84).

In any case, the proofreading of GE1 (→FE→EE), probably coming from Chopin, must be considered to be the final decision and this is the version we give in the main text.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of GE , Partial corrections