Chopin Nocturne in C# minor-versions

[loveibert]

I am learning this lovely piece and find that there are several versions. Not sure which one (s) to choose, but would love to see them all in the same place to compare. I have  the Henle version, and I see that the "urtext" version is here on the list- quite different in places. The Henle shows a partial MS by Chopin's sister Ludwika, which pretty much agrees with the Henle version in measure 19, especially, but there are other versions that show in measure 19, eight notes in the 2nd beat instead id 16ths. This makes an interesting rhythmic  variation that shows up in a manuscript version on IMSLP. I like this!  Question is, whose manuscript is this, and is it what Chopin intended....

There  are other versions of the whole piece, but I'm not sure where they are.
Any thoughts , favorites?

Thanks! Fun to explore.

[kosulin]

AFAIK, there are are only 2 legitimate versions, because there were 2 manuscripts written by Chopin, but only the first one which he made for himself in 1830, survived.

The second one, which he wrote few years later and sent to his sister (and where he supposedly 'fixed', or 'unified' the time signature), is lost, but his sister copied it for somebody else's album, and a reproduction of that copy survived. This copy made by his sister from the second manuscript has changes and additional performance notes compared to the first manuscript, which were most likely authored by Chopin.

All other copies made by various authors, including the small six-bar incipit in the list of 36 Unpublished Works by Chopin compiled circa 1854 by his sister, have arbitrary errors, changes and additions that cannot be attributed to Chopin. The same is true in regards to the first edition - it is not authentic.

I would assume the IMSLP manuscript (early version) dated 1830 is the first and the only surviving manuscript by Chopin himself. However, his sister's copy is also legitimate for sure. This is why National Edition (Ekier) published both versions in their Urtext (B-series / Various Compositions, Vol. 29). This would be the best edition if you want to compare both legitimate versions. Just make sure the print you get is of the second edition (printed in 2006 or later) - they made some corrections there. If you have any questions about the Ekier edition I would be happy to answer.

And if you have Henle edition (I don't), they usually provide some explanations in the preface on sources they used and on editorial decisions they made.

[loveibert]

AFAIK, there are are only 2 legitimate versions, because there were 2 manuscripts written by Chopin, but only the first one which he made for himself in 1830, survived.

The second one, which he wrote few years later and sent to his sister (and where he supposedly 'fixed', or 'unified' the time signature), is lost, but his sister copied it for somebody else's album, and a reproduction of that copy survived. This copy made by his sister from the second manuscript has changes and additional performance notes compared to the first manuscript, which were most likely authored by Chopin.

All other copies made by various authors, including the small six-bar incipit in the list of 36 Unpublished Works by Chopin compiled circa 1854 by his sister, have arbitrary errors, changes and additions that cannot be attributed to Chopin. The same is true in regards to the first edition - it is not authentic.

I would assume the IMSLP manuscript (early version) dated 1830 is the first and the only surviving manuscript by Chopin himself. However, his sister's copy is also legitimate for sure. This is why National Edition (Ekier) published both versions in their Urtext (B-series / Various Compositions, Vol. 29). This would be the best edition if you want to compare both legitimate versions. Just make sure the print you get is of the second edition (printed in 2006 or later) - they made some corrections there. If you have any questions about the Ekier edition I would be happy to answer.

And if you have Henle edition (I don't), they usually provide some explanations in the preface on sources they used and on editorial decisions they made.

Thank you so much-I'll  do some more exploring according to your references.

[movedest]

I am learning this lovely piece and find that there are several versions. Not sure which one (s) to choose, but would love to see them all in the same place to compare. I have  the Henle version, and I see that the "urtext" version is here on the list- quite different in places. The Henle shows a partial MS by Chopin's sister Ludwika, which pretty much agrees with the Henle version in measure 19, especially, but there are other versions that show in measure 19, eight notes in the 2nd beat instead id 16ths. This makes an interesting rhythmic  variation that shows up in a manuscript version on IMSLP. I like this!  Question is, whose manuscript is this, and is it what Chopin intended....

There  are other versions of the whole piece, but I'm not sure where they are.
Any thoughts , favorites?

Thanks! Fun to explore.

If you’re interested in exploring further, looking at editions like Paderewski or the Polish National Edition can be revealing—they often include commentary on variant readings. Personally, I love seeing these rhythmic nuances because they bring a fresh, almost improvisatory life to a familiar piece.

__Space Waves__

[smithjohns]

That's one of the fascinating aspects of studying Chopin—there are often multiple authentic sources with subtle but meaningful differences. The variation in measure 19 is especially intriguing, and comparing manuscripts, first editions, and urtext editions can provide valuable insight into editorial choices and performance practice. For students balancing intensive research projects alongside their musical studies, services like do my thesis from MyAssignmentHelp can offer academic support when needed. It would be interesting to learn more about the source of that IMSLP manuscript to better assess its connection to Chopin's original intentions. Happy exploring!