mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

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. 357-359

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

..

At the beginning of bars 357 and 359, there are no sharps raising c1 to c1 in FE (→GE1→GE2). This patent inaccuracy – c is present in the previous octave in the R.H., while c1 is in the orchestral part (violin II) – was corrected in EE and GE3. Sharps were added also in FEH.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Annotations in FEH

b. 364

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

g2 in chord in FE (→EE)

a2 in chord in GE
..

The mistake of FE (→EE) is proved by a comparison with analogous bars 363 and 367-368 (see also bars 39-40) as well as by the orchestral part, in which in oboe I there is an a2 and not g2. The revision of GE was most probably based on the aforementioned analogy.   

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 378

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

Crotchet A in FE (→EE1→EE2)

Crotchet B in GE, EE3 & FED
..

The mistake of FE is proved by the orchestral part, in which there is a B in cellos and double-basses, as well as by the Chopinesque correction in FED. The correct text was introduced in GE probably on the basis of comparison of the piano part with the orchestral parts. EE3 was revised probably on the basis of GE. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Annotations in FED , GE revisions , Errors repeated in EE

b. 385

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

f2 in FE (→EE1)

f2 in GE, EE2 (→EE3) & FEH
..

A missing mark before the last semiquaver is most probably Chopin's oversight. The fact that the soloist recalls one of the main themes of this movement in a new, yet well-prepared C major key brings peace after the turbulent orchestral fragment. In this context, a deviation from the original, diatonic course of the phrase does not seem to be justified and sounds strange. The natural added in GE is almost certainly inauthentic, the mark added in EE2 (→EE3) even more so, but the mark added in FEH (probably by the pupil's hand) may be coming from Chopin.

category imprint: Interpretations within context

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Annotations in FEH

b. 385

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

Third c1-e1 in FE (→EE)

No third in GE
..

The missing c1-e1 third, ending the phrase of the orchestral part, is most probably a mistake of the engraver of GE. It could also indicate that it was added in the last proofreading of FE, yet the engraver's mistake is supported by the placement of the Solo indication in GE, i.e. only just over the 2nd beat of the bar, probably due to this third, which does not belong to the solo part. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE