mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Annotations in teaching copies

b. 547

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

Fingering written into FEH

No teaching fingering
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FEH

b. 548

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

Fingering written into FEH

No teaching fingering
..

The digits written in FEH are identical with the ones given by Fontana in EE in analogous bar 193. See also the fingering in the R.H. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FEH

b. 550

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

C in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)

C in FESf
..

The flats added in FESf could not have been written by Chopin, since the copy of FESf comes from an impression released sometime after his death. According to us, the variant entered into FESf may be, however, authentic: the pupil could have written down a change indicated by Chopin in a copy he purchased later.
A stylistic analysis leads to the conclusion that Chopin could definitely have suggested such a variant, since he would willingly use a Neapolitan chord; moreover, in this specific place, the C major chord is an exact equivalent of the G major chord from b. 546, so the version of the progression in FESf sounds as naturally as the version of the remaining sources. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FESf

b. 551-552

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

Fingering written into FEH

No fingering in FE (→GE)

Fontana's fingering in EE
..

The authenticity of these concerted indications is not confirmed, yet, according to us, it is highly likely that it is a Chopinesque fingering.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FEH

b. 555

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

e2 in FE

e2 in GE, EE & FEJ
..

The sharp before the last semiquaver in FE is almost certainly a mistake – it is proved by comparison with analogous bar 196, 200 and 551, supported by deletion of the unnecessary accidental in FEJ. The awkward e2-d2 sequence, omitting the chordal e2, drew the attention of both the revisers of GE and EE. The traces of corrections visible in FE prove that the discussed note was corrected from d2 to e2, which allows us, to a certain extent, understand the mechanism of the mistake – the proofreading was definitely aimed at e2, yet along with a notehead, the engraver erroneously moved also the  (cf. the Sonata in B​​​​​​​ Minor, Op. 35, 3rd mov., bar 20)​​​​​​.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Annotations in FEJ