mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 632

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

e2 in FE (→EE)

e2 in GE
..

Stylistically speaking, the version of GE is absolutely possible – such melodic sequences can be quite frequently found in Chopin's pieces (cf. bar 610 or bar 66 in the 2nd mov. as well as, e.g. the Ballade in G Minor, Op. 23, bar 45 and 47). However, in this case, nothing supports the authenticity of that version – in similar contexts, in spite of the step of augmented second, Chopin used a harmonic note in bar 636 as well as in bar 624, 628 and 640.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 633

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

..

The notation of accidentals in FE, although faultless, is illogical – a cautionary  before e1 appears only just before the 4th quaver, while the  before c​​​​​​​2 is unnecessarily repeated in the 2nd group of semiquavers. The remaining editions took an attempt at ordering the notation:

  • in GE1 (→GE2), the before e1 was removed, whereas a natural was added before the G crotchet;
  • GE3 added naturals also before e2 and e1 in the 1st group and removed the superfluous ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ – this is the notation we apply in the main text;
  • in EE1, the  before e1 was moved to the 1st figure in the bar, and the superfluous  was removed;
  • in EE2, a  was added before G at the beginning of the bar;
  • in EE3, a  was added before e2 in the 1st group of semiquavers, which resulted in the same version as in GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals

b. 636

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

..

A sharp raising c2 to c​​​​​​​2 appears in FE (→GE1→GE2,→EE1→EE2) only just before the 4th quaver of the bottom voice. Chopin would write an accidental too late on a few occasions (e.g. in the Etude in F Major, Op. 10 No. 8, bar 43). An accidental at the beginning of the bar was added in EE3 and GE3, yet it was only GE3 that removed the  in the middle of the bar, unnecessary in this situation.  

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals

b. 636-637

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

Slurs in FE (→EE)

Slurs in GE
..

The slurs of FE (→EE) are probably inaccurate, since it is difficult to find a reason that would justify their different range – cf. bars 621-629 and the remaining ones in this fragment. However, it has to be said that if it were not for the ratio of the number of one type of the slurs to the other, it would be the slurs of FE, encompassing the entire motifs, that could be considered to be more accurate. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 637-639

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Staccato dots in A (→FC→GE1) & GE3

No marks in FE (→EE) & GE2
..

In both manuscripts, these bars are a literal repetition of b. 186-188 (they are not written out in full), and like there, staccato dots in b. 637 and 639 are reproduced only in GE1 and GE3. We do not include them into the main text in view of their possible deletion during the proofreading of FE (→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE