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. 44

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

..

In FE, there is no accidental before the topmost note of the 2nd chord. This patent mistake – see the chord in the L.H. on the 4th quaver – was corrected both in GE and EE. A sharp was added also in FES.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Annotations in FES , Last key signature sign

b. 44

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

..

In FE, the  before the chord on the last quaver is placed at the pitch of c1 instead of e1. This patent mistake was corrected in GE and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 45

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

..

In FE, the triplets on the 6th and 7th quavers in the bar open with a d2-c3 seventh. Chopin corrected those patent mistakes in FED; GE and EE also include the correct version. Entries in pencil are present also in FES and FEJ; however, their meaning is not entirely clear. In FES, something resembling note heads was added in pencil around the erroneous notes, yet they rather look like a deletion of c2 than an addition of a b2. In spite of this, since it is difficult to imagine a different aim of additions in this place, we assume that the intention of the person who wrote them, probably Chopin, was to correct the wrong notes. The entry in pencil in FEJ is even less obvious; it looks nothing like the Chopinesque entries – both erroneous notes were put in circles and a quite illegible sign was placed above each of them, perhaps a letter (b?). Therefore, it could mean that the entry was performed by an English-speaking person, hence, e.g. Miss Stirling, who undoubtedly copied the Chopinesque entries from her copies to the copies of Chopin's sister in other pieces.    

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FED , GE revisions , Annotations in FES

b. 47

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

..

In the main text, we add a cautionary  before e3. The mark was added both in GE and EE; it was also written in FEH (the mark's shape is not typical of Chopin's handwriting).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Annotations in FEH

b. 49

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

..

In FE (→GE1→GE2), there is no accidental before the 4th demisemiquaver before last. The missing  must be a mistake in this context, probably repeated after [A], since such inaccuracies in the notation of accidentals are typical of Chopin. The sharp was added in EE and in GE3; in the latter, another defect of Chopin's notation was removed – the unnecessarily repeated  before a2 in the 3rd group of semiquavers. The sharp in the discussed place could have been added in FEH – see the adjacent note. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Omission of current key accidentals , Last key signature sign , Errors repeated in GE