PERFORMANCE COMMENTARY

p. 13
Notes on the musical text Bars 55-56, 59-62 and analog. R.H. The accented d notes should
2

create an independent sonoric plan. Chopin applied a similar de-

The v a r i a n t s marked as ossia were given this label by Chopin or vice upon several occasions – cf., e. g. Polonaise in A , Op. 53,
were added in his hand to pupils’ copies; variants without this designa- bars 143-151 or Berceuse in D , Op. 57, bars 53-54. The addi-
tion are the result of discrepancies in the texts of authentic versions or tional distinction of the lowest notes of the figuration, proposed
an inability to establish an unambiguous reading of the text. by some editors, obliterates the effect intended by Chopin, con-
Minor authentic alternatives (single notes, ornaments, slurs, accents, current with the titular spianato.
pedal indications, etc.) that can be regarded as variants are enclosed in p. 15 1
Last bar Arpeggios should be executed continuously from G 1 to g .
round brackets (), whilst editorial additions are written in square brackets [].
Pianists who are not interested in editorial questions, and want to base
their performance on a single text, unhampered by variants, are re-
commended to use the music printed in the principal staves, including Polonaise
all the markings in brackets. p. 17
Bar 26 and analog. In order not to blur the difference between
Chopin’s original f i n g e r i n g is indicated in large bold-type numerals,
those bars and bar 28 and analog. the grace-notes should be
1 2 3 4 5 , in contrast to the editors’ fingering which is written in small executed in an anticipatory manner.
italic numerals 1 2 3 4 5 . Wherever authentic fingering is enclosed in
parentheses this means that it was not present in the primary sources, p. 18
Bar 41 R.H. Beginning of trill:
but added by Chopin to his pupils’ copies. The dashed signs indicating 2 2 1
d -f together with a-e in the L.H.
the distribution of parts between the hands come from the editors.
2 2
A general discussion on the interpretation of Chopin’s works is to be Bars 51-54 In bar 54 the accented notes f and f can be ex-
contained in a separate volume: The Introduction to the National Edi- ecuted with the L.H.
tion, in the section entitled Problems of Performance. 3 8 2 5
3 2 1
1 2 1 5
Abbreviations: R.H. – right hand, L.H. – left hand. Different fingering of bars 51-53:
8 5 2 5 2
1 2 1 2
3 1 1
Andante spianato
and bars 53-54:
In all his works only once did Chopin use the term spianato (“smoothed,
even”). In this case, its purpose was probably to bring the performance
closer to the unique ambience of the composition, created by, i. a.
p. 19
dynamics, tone colour, pedalling and phrasing. Particular attention Bar 61 R.H. It seems more likely that Chopin envisaged the
should be paid to the subtle realisation of the authentic slurring. As a following performance:
rule, short slurs, characteristic for this period in Chopin’s oeuvre, do not
embrace the whole phrases – hence although the beginning of the slurs
should be slightly emphasised, the performers must be warned against 6
releasing the hand when the end of a slur occurs within a phrase.
p. 10 2
Bar 12 and 44 R.H. The grace-note b should be sounded to-
gether with G in the L.H.
The following execution, however, may be permitted:
p. 11
Bar 19, 20, 30 and 32 R.H. The grace-notes should be executed 1

lightly in order not to disturb the rhythm (bar 19) or obliterate the
impression of an accent on the subsequent note. It is less essen-
tial whether striking them will coincide with an appropriate note 5
in the L.H. or slightly earlier.

Bars 20-21 L.H. The editors recommend to apply a “harmonic le-

gato” at the end of bar 20 (the fingers sustain the components of
harmony) so as to accentuate the modulating transition of the Bars 61-62 In the opinion of the editors the passage is best ar-
2
ranged in such a way that g would coincide with E at the begin-
bass: . The suggestion of such execution is 3 1
ning of bar 62, and g with b -g on the third quaver of this bar.
p. 23
contained in the sempre legato marking, written in bar 1 and Bars 125-126 R.H. It is better to execute the grace-notes in an
binding throughout this whole section. anticipatory manner.
p. 12 p. 24
Bar 43 R.H. The rhythmic solution of the first half of the bar: Bar 131 R.H. Beginning of trill:
1
b together with the octave in the L.H.
p. 27 1
Bar 161 R.H. The first g grace-note should be struck simulta-
or neously with E in the L.H., as it was marked by Chopin in a pu-
pil’s copy in similar bar 55.
p. 35
Bars 269-272 In the opinion of the editors the semiquavers in
the L.H. can be performed simultaneously with the last semi-
Cf. Source Commentary.
quavers in each group in the R.H. Cf. a similar figuration at the
2 end of Variations in B , Op. 12.
Bar 48 R.H. The grace-note c should be struck together with G
in the L.H. Jan Ekier, Paweł Kamiński

2
SOURCE COMMENTARY /ABRIDGED/

p. 11
Introductory comments Bar 27 L.H. Two versions of Chopin’s fingering correspond to
two possible readings of figures imprecisely written into FED.
The following commentary sets out in an abridged form the principles p. 12
of editing the musical text and discusses the most important discrepan- Bars 36-37 The pedalling in FE (→GE1) is recorded imprecisely
cies between the authentic sources; furthermore, it draws attention to – after the sign at the end of bar 36 there occurs a succes-
departures from the authentic text which are most frequently encoun- sive such sign at the beginning of bar 37. Possibly, the sign at
tered in the collected editions of Chopin’s music compiled after his the end of bar 36 is missing although it is quite probable that it
death. A separately published Source Commentary contains a detailed was the sign in bar 37 which was unnecessarily put by the
description of the sources, their filiation, justification of the choice of engraver of FE. Chopin used similar pedalling upon numerous
primary sources, a thorough presentation of the differences between occasions, e. g. in Nocturne in F, Op. 15 no. 1, bars 72-73, Bal-
them and a reproduction of characteristic fragments. lade in F minor , Op. 52, bars 12-13, Sonata in B minor , Op. 58,
third movement, bars 118-119. The version without the pedal
change in bar 37 is found in EE.
Abbreviations: R.H. – right hand, L.H. – left hand. The sign → symbolises a
connection between sources; it should be read “and ... based on it”. 2
Bar 43 R.H. It is doubtful whether the value of the first a ( ),
occurring in the sources, is not mistaken. In the whole Andante
the passages written with small notes fill the given rhythmic val-
Polonaise in E flat major, Op. 22 ue, thus designating both the moment of their beginning and
ending. Here, the rhythmic values and hence the moment of be-
Sources ginning the ornament are not defined. Taking into consideration
[A] There is no extant autograph. arguments provided by sources – the probable reasons for the
FE First French edition, M. Schlesinger (M. S. 1926), Paris July 1836. errors committed by the engraver, and musical arguments – the
FE is based on [A] and was corrected by Chopin probably twice. tempo of the performance comparable with the tempo of figures
FED Copy from the collection belonging to Chopin’s pupil Camille in bar 17 or 41, it seems most fitting of all to recognise the two
Dubois (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris). It contains fingering origin- notations in the Performance Commentary.
ating from lessons given by Chopin, a corrected printing error, p. 13
Bars 55-56, 59-60 and analog. R.H. Certain later collected editions
and minor performance directives.
o o o arbitrarily distinguished the fourth and tenth semiquavers in those
EE1 First English edition, Wessel & C (W & C N 1643), London bars by means of additional stems. Cf. Performance Commentary.
May 1836, based most probably on the proofs of FE without
Chopin’s final corrections. It includes a number of adjustments; Bars 56 and 100 R.H. The tenth note in GE3 was changed arbit-
Chopin did not participate in its production. 1 1
rarily from f to a .
EE2 Second impression of EE1 (same firm and number), after 1846,
with few changes.
EE = EE1 and EE2. p. 14
Bar 78 and 90 In the notation in FE (→EE,GE):
GE1 First German edition, Breitkopf & Härtel (5709), Leipzig August
1836. Based on FE it contains traces of the publisher’s adjust-
ments and a number of errors. Chopin took no part in its produc-
tion. There are copies of GE1 with different details on the covers those bars could be mistakenly played in 4/4 time. We render
(three versions). this notation more precise in order to avoid ambiguity.
GE2 Second German edition, (same firm and number), after 1852,
containing the text of GE1 with slight adjustments and several
errors. Polonaise
GE3 Later impression of GE2, after 1872. It corrects some of the p. 16
errors, supplements accidentals, and introduces certain arbitrary Bars 1-16 In the sources the version intended for a single piano
changes. does not contain any markings as regards instrumentation in
GE = GE1, GE2 and GE3. those fragments, which in the concert version are performed
Sco Manuscript of the score of the Polonaise (Österreichische Na- without the solo piano. We add the markings upon the basis of
original orchestral parts in those cases where indicating the in-
tionalbibliothek, Vienna), prepared as a base for its first edition
tended authentic instrumentation could prove to be inspiring for
(Breitkopf & Härtel, 1880) most probably in the 1870s. The solo
the pianist (bars 1 and 15).
part was copied from GE3 and subjected to further adjustments.
Bar 20, 58 and analog. L.H. In the sources the prolongation of
Editorial Principles the crotchet f to the fifth quaver of the bar is noted imprecisely.
We accept as our basis FE as the only authentic source, and take into In FE (→GE) this note is prolonged only in bar 20 (by means of a
consideration Chopin’s annotations in FED. dot) and 164 (by means of a tie and a note). As a result of errors
A precise distinction of the long and short accents, characteristic for and omissions there are no prolongations in EE. Performance
Chopin, as well as their assignment to the right or left hand is impos- differentiation was certainly not Chopin’s intention and thus we
sible due to the absence of an autograph and the visible imprecision of render the script of this detail uniform by following the example
the first editions. We attempt to recreate the intention of the composer of bar 164.
by taking in consideration his habits, documented in sources for other
compositions. p. 17
Bar 29 R.H. We change the sign, which occurs in the first
editions probably due to a mistake, into , found in all the ana-
logous bars in the sources. A differentiation of such signs in
Andante spianato Chopin’s autographs can pose a difficult task (cf. for instance
Waltzes in A minor, Op. 34 no. 2, bars 37, 39 and analog., and
p. 10
Bar 1 The value of the metronomic tempo given in parentheses, in D , Op. 64 no. 1, bar 20 and 92), and has sometimes caused
lower than the one printed in FE (→EE,GE), was added by Cho- problems for the engravers of the first editions (e. g. in Waltz
pin into FED. in A , Op. 34 no. 1, bar 40 and analog.).

3
 Bar 31 R.H. FE (→EE1,GE) mistakenly has b 2-d 3 instead of b 2- Bar 93 and 94 In FE the absence of the ties sustaining d in
3
e as the demisemiquaver before the fourth quaver of the bar. bar 93 and b in bar 94 seems to be accidental. EE and GE2
1
R.H. The first editions still have the accent below a on the sixth (→GE3) supplemented the tie in bar 93, and in bar 94 GE added
quaver of the bar. The absence of a corresponding accent in a tie next to b but omitted it next to G.
analogous bar 175 indicates the possible engraver’s error in the
bar discussed, since in [A] the reprise of the Polonaise (bars 162- Bar 95 The mistaken rhythmic record in FE:
220) was presumably not written in notes. Cf. bars 69-70 and 6
analog., in which the accenting of notes on the sixth quaver of
the bar is linked with a prolongation of their rhythmic value.

Bars 32 and 176 In bar 32 the L.H.’s b is not tied in the sources; 6
1
besides, GE2 (→GE3) missed the tie next to b in the R.H.
Some of the later collected editions also omitted corresponding
ties in analogous bar 176. can be read in two ways:
p. 18 – with a quaver at the beginning of the bar (according to the
Bars 42 and 186 R.H. The sources have the figures 2 and 4 above
2 2 L.H.), recognising the three semiquavers following it as a triplet;
the d -f third. This fingering, not connected naturally either with
in the main text we give this version, contained in EE and GE,
the previous trill nor with the following figure, is evidently mista-
2 2 due to its association with a polonaise rhythm and a rhythmic
ken; presumably, it should be situated above the next c -e
analogy to the previous two bars;
third.
– with a semiquaver at the beginning of the bar (according to the
p. 19 3 R.H.), which seems to be indicated by the distances between the
Bar 56 and 200 R.H. In EE there is no grace-note before e and
2 3
the sign of the turn is given between e and e . In GE this ver- notes in FE.
sion is found only in bar 200. We cannot exclude the possibility p. 22
Bar 101 R.H. EE2 and the majority of the later collected editions
that this is the original version, changed by Chopin in the last 3 3
arbitrarily changed the last note of the bar from g to f . The orig-
correction of FE (cf. the last part of the next comment).
inal version most probably does not contain a mistake – cf. simi-
2 lar devices in passages of this type in Etude in C, Op. 10 no. 1,
Bar 57 and 201 R.H. In the first editions the note b on the sec-
bar 5 and 29.
ond quaver of the bar has the value of a crotchet. Nonetheless,
in FE (→GE) the figuration, written in small notes and filling the p. 24
Bar 128 L.H. FE (→EE) has f at the beginning of the bar. Cho-
second part of the bar, is laid out in such a way as if the sus- pin corrected this error in FED. GE also contains the proper
2
tained b beginning it was to coincide already with the third version.
quaver of the bar (in EE the arrangement of the passage is essen-
2
tially identical, and lacks only this opening b ). Upon this basis, Bar 132 L.H. In GE1 there is no ledger line below the minim e
1

one of the later collected editions arbitrarily reduced the value of 1

so that GE2 (→GE3) mistakenly deciphered and printed it as c .
2
b on the second quaver of the bar to a quaver. The following
p. 25 1
arguments speak against such a solution: Bar 142 R.H. The mordent above g is found only in FE.
– a rhythmic scheme, characteristic of the main theme of the Po- R.H. There are no accidentals prior to the fourth and eight quaver
lonaise, in which the revival of melodic motion, halted on the first in FE (→EE,GE). Some of the later collected editions arbitrarily
or second quaver of the bar, does not take place until the fourth added naturals before those notes thus establishing their sound
2 3
quaver; such a scheme occurs in bars 17-18, 21-22, 25 and 27 as c and c . We are entitled to presume that in the entire pas-
3 3
and primarily in bar 19, analogous to the discussed bar; sage Chopin regarded , raising c to c at the beginning of the
– errors in planning the L.H. in relation to the R.H. were made in bar, as binding; this is proven by the following arguments:
4
FE, slight imprecision is to be found in Andante spianato – placed before c , the last note of the bar, shows that not until
(bar 15), and a more serious mistake is encountered in, e. g. this spot did Chopin consider it necessary to restore c;
Nocturne in B minor, Op. 9 no. 1, bar 73. – in the sources for the Polonaise, where an octave transposition
R.H. The third and second penultimate notes of the passage in sign is used, the accidentals remain binding at a pitch following
2 2
EE are a and g . GE has this version only in bar 201. This is from the record, which in this case signifies the reading of the
2
probably the original version, changed by Chopin in the last fourth semiquaver as c ; since an exact repetition of the figure
proof-reading of FE. an octave higher does not give rise to even the slightest doubts,
3
the eighth semiquaver should be c , and leaving it without a sign
2
Bar 62 and 206 R.H. The last small note in EE is a . is only a slight imprecision in the notation;
p. 20 – we come across a similar situation in the autographs of Con-
Bar 84 R.H. Unquestionably, only the limited range of the piano certo in F minor, Op. 21, first movement, bars 143-144, where in
compelled Chopin to resign from transferring the chord an octave a figure transferred by an octave Chopin omitted the indispens-
higher, an operation natural from the viewpoint of execution and 2 2
able , raising f to f , and in the next bar cancelled the still
characteristic of virtuoso cadences. heard sharps in the proofs of one of the editions.
p. 21 Taking the above mentioned arguments into consideration we
Bar 90 R.H. Some of the later collected editions arbitrarily give the version with c indubitably intended by Chopin, supple-
2 3
changed the last quaver from b to b . menting it with sharps in accordance with the contemporary prin-
ciples of chromatic spelling.
Bar 92 R.H. In FE (→EE,GE1) there is no prior to the eighth
note from the end of the bar. This is certainly Chopin’s omission, p. 27 1
Bar 161 R.H. EE does not have one of the g grace-notes.
since starting from the sixth small note the figuration has an es-
2
tablished G-major key with distinctly shown e sounds (the sev- Jan Ekier
enth and thirteenth small notes). Paweł Kamiński