mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Pitch
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Pitch

b. 39

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

..

In FE (→EE,GE1→GE2), there are accidentals before the 2nd semiquaver in the 2nd half of the bar, repeated after the last semiquaver in the 1st half. The superfluous marks were removed in GE3. A similar situation in bar 41 and 88 and 90.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals

b. 41

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

..

In FE (→GE1→GE2), there is no  restoring e2 in the last third on the 3rd crotchet in the bar.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors repeated in GE

b. 42

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

..

In FE (→GE1), the top note of the 10th semiquaver is an a2 (with a ); a2 is then restored with a sharp at the beginning of the 4th beat in the bar. The unequivocal mistake of the engraver is confirmed by corrections in three out of four pupils' copies – FES, FEJ and FEH. Respective revisions were introduced also in EE and subsequent GE – in GE2, the erroneous  was changed to a , whereas in EE and GE3, both marks were removed.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEJ , Errors repeated in GE , Annotations in FEH

b. 43

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

c2 in FE (→GE,EE)

c2 in FEH, contextual interpretation
..

None of the first editions includes a  raising c2 to c2 in the 4th third or a  restoring c2 on the last quaver in the 2nd triplet. It is most likely another – cf. bar 39 and 41 – oversight of Chopin, although definitely more serious and more difficult to explain. The phrase (bars 43-46) develops the two preceding ones (two-bar ones); there is no reason for the melodic shape of the discussed place, clearly referring to the beginnings of bars 39 and 41, presenting the same idea, to differ from them. This statement is confirmed by analogous phrases in bars 88, 90 and 92. A similar oversight of an alteration of a note and its later cancellation happened to Chopin in the Etude in F minor, op. 25, no. 2, bar 56. In FEH, a  before the 4th third was added probably by Chopin himself or under his suggestion. Taking into consideration the above arguments, we introduce this correction to the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FEH

b. 44

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

b1 in chord in FE (→EE1) & EE3

No b1 in GE & EE2
..

The missing b1 note on the last quaver in GE may be an oversight. According to us, however, it is more likely that Chopin added this note in the last proofreading of FE. It is indicated by visible traces of changes in FE, i.e. an inaccurate alignment of the upper section of the stem, reaching this note, with respect to the lower one, which would be impossible if the entire stem was engraved as one line, and the trace of removing b1 in the last chord in the R.H. Therefore, the proofreading would consist in replacing the broad chord in the R.H. (with a span of a ninth) – b1-e2-b2-c3 – with an easier chord – c2-e2-b2-c3 – and in adding a b1 to the last chord in the L.H.
In EE2 the b1 was probably deleted due to a comparison with a copy of GE; the correct text was reinstated in EE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE