mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in FE

b. 88-90

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

..

There is no  restoring c2 in the last third on the 3rd beat of bars 88 and 90 in FE (→GE,EE).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 91

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

..

In FE (→EE), the duration of the 3rd semiquaver on the last beat of the bar is increased to a crotchet. Going beyond the beat of the bar, which makes no music sense, must be a mistake – cf. analogous bar 52 where the corresponding note is a quaver. In GE, the prolongation of this note was omitted, probably in order to avoid a troublesome, incomprehensible element of notation. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Errors repeated in EE

b. 91

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

..

In FE, there are no accidentals before the 4th semiquaver in the R.H. and the bottom note of the 3rd quaver in the L.H. Oversights of the symbols of the current key, typical of Chopin, were corrected both in GE and EE. A sharp in the L.H. was added also in FEH and FES. In the latter, cautionary double sharps before f2 on the 2nd and 4th beats of the bar were also added.

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 , Annotations in FEH

b. 94

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

FE (literal reading) & EE3

GE1 (→GE2), contextual interpretation (possible interpretation of FE)

EE1 (→EE2) – probable interpretation of FE

GE3, contextual interpretation
..

The rhythmic notation of the 1st half of the bar in FE is unclear – according to the written rhythmic values, the group of 20 demisemiquavers begins after the e4 semiquaver, yet according to the arrangement of notes – after the quaver. In GE1 (→GE2), the arrangement of notes was changed; however, a mistake in the beam arrangement was committed, as a result of which both e4 notes are semiquavers; after correcting the mistake, the version of GE1 (→GE2) constitutes a possible interpretation of the notation of FE. The version of EE1 (→EE2) suggests another interpretation, where the first e4 is a quaver. According to us, it is more likely that it is the second version that corresponds to Chopin's intention, hence we give it in the main text. In GE3, another mistake was added to the mistake of the previous GE – a wrong arrangement of the quavers in the L.H. with respect to the R.H. EE3 reinstated the unclear notation of FE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors

b. 103

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

..

In FE (→EE,GE1→GE2), there is no  restoring b2 in the 2nd group of grace notes and no  restoring f1 in the last group in the L.H. These harmonically patent oversights of Chopin were corrected only in GE3 and, partially, in the pupils' copies: a  was added in FES, a  – in FEH. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Annotations in FES , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE , Annotations in FEH