mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in FE

b. 543

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

No upper voice in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Upper voice in GE3
..

The missing marking of the top voice is obviously an inaccuracy of notation. In FE, the slur, placed high above that figure, suggests that stems and beam were planned here, but were overlooked by the engraver, perhaps due to the need to correct an erroneous note (one can see traces of removal of d3 at the beginning of the 3rd beat of the bar). The top voice was completed in GE3. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in FE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 548-550

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

2 slurs in FE (→GE1→GE2)

2 slurs in EE

1 slur to end of bar 549 in GE3

1 slur to bar 550, suggested by the editors
..

The slurs of FE are inaccurate, to say the least – the slur in bar 549 (which opens a line) is a continuation of a non-existing slur at the end of bar 548 (in the system, we consider the slur in the same way it was interpreted in GE1, i.e. as beginning in bar 549). A comparison with analogous bars 193-194 shows which slur Chopin most probably meant, and we give this version in the main text. In EE, like in bars 541-542, the slur was completed in the simplest manner – the initial fragment of the slur from bar 549 was added over the 3rd beat of bar 548. In GE3, both bars were encompassed with one slur; however, it was not led to the beginning of bar 550.   

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 552

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

..

The  raising c1 to c​​​​​​​1, overlooked in FE, was added both in GE and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

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

b. 561

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

..

In FE, there is no  raising c3 to c​​​​​​​3. The patent mistake was corrected in GE and EE. In turn, the missing  restoring g3, necessary in this context, even as a cautionary accidental, was added only in GE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors repeated in EE