mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors resulting from corrections

b. 441

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

..

In FE, there is no  raising c2 to c2. Visible traces of corrections in print reveal that it was a​​​​​​​1 that was the original version; it was moved to the correct pitch in the proofreading, yet without . This patent oversight (of the engraver or of Chopin at the time of marking the correction) was revised both in GE and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: EE revisions , Errors resulting from corrections , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 537

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

b repeated in FE

b tied in GE1 (→GE2) & EE

b tied & augmented in GE3
..

The version of FE is almost certainly erroneous – cf. all the remaining analogous figures. Both in GE and EE, the tie of b was added, yet only GE3 added a dot extending this note.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

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. 607

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

Fifth in FE, literal reading

Only minim in GE

Appoggiatura & minim in EE

Acciaccatura – our alternative suggestion
..

The vague and most probably erroneous notation of FE was probably supposed to look like the one applied two bars later – a d2 minim preceded by an a2 grace note. We adopt this obvious interpretation in the main text; it was applied already in EE. In turn, the version of GE may be the original version, completed by Chopin in the last proofreading of FE. We give a short grace note as an acceptable variant – see bar 609.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 667-670

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

..

In FE, the middle notes of the tremolando that double the trill are devoid of extending dots. The inaccuracy was corrected in the remaining editions.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors