mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Different values of chord components

b. 7

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

..

The sources differ in the notation of the first chord in the R.H.:

  • in JC, all three components are combined with one stem; such a kind of notation can often be found in Chopin sources, also in autographs. However, taking into consideration numerous errors and inaccuracies, JC cannot be considered as a fully reliable source in terms of the notation's details.
  • in EF there is a two-part notation: the minim a-e1 has a separate stem pointing downwards.
  • in PE the notation is unclear; probably it refers to a two-part notation in which the minim a-e1 has a stem pointing upwards. This is the interpretation we give in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Different values of chord components

b. 8

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

g1 dotted minim in A1

g1 minim in FE (→EE)

g1 dotted minim in GE
..

The missing tie of g1 in FE (→EE) is most probably an oversight, perhaps provoked by the notation of A1, in which the g1-b1 third is written with the use of one-part writing despite different rhythmic values of both notes. In the main text we give the more accurate notation of GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Different values of chord components

b. 11

composition: Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major

Rhythmic notation in A (→FE→GE,EE)

Our suggestion
..

According to us, the authentic, simplified rhythmic notation of the 1st chord may be perceived as unclear in this case. Therefore, we introduce a more exact notation with division into voices.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Different values of chord components

b. 16

composition: Op. 28 No. 23, Prelude in F major

f2 in A

No f2 in FC (→GE1)

f2 in FE (→EE) & GE2 (→GE3)
..

The missing f2 crotchet in FC (→GE1) may be a result of an unfinished or failed correction of the pitch of that note – in the place where the stem of the chord ends, e2 was probably removed. Another possibility is a misrepresenting its notehead in A for a mere thickening at the end of stem. The copyist also omitted the arpeggio sign before that chord and the slur. The revision restoring a tolerably correct text in GE2 (→GE3) was most probably based on FE, which is indicated by an identical unification of the rhythmic values of the g1-b1 third (in FE the unification most probably resulted from a misunderstanding of the notation of A) and by the way the misleading notation in the previous bar was corrected.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Different values of chord components , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 20

composition: Op. 10 No 6, Etude in E♭ minor

in A

in FE (→GE,EE)
..

The change of the notation introduced by Chopin in a proofreading of FE (→GE,EE) manifests both the harmonic progression and rhythmic values (shorter sound of g1). In EE2 (→EE3) the quaver flag is missing.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Different values of chord components , Enharmonic corrections