mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Omission of current key accidentals

b. 149

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

..

In FE, there is no  raising d1 to d1, which must be considered an inaccuracy, since d1 previously appeared only on the bottom stave. The mark was added in GE and EE, whereas in the latter, a  was repeated also before d2.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals

b. 190

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

..

In FE, there is no accidental before the penultimate semiquaver. In this situation, the absence of a  is a patent mistake, corrected 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. 221

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

..

The  raising d1 to d1, 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. 272

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

..

In GE1 (→GE2), there is no  before the second quaver. It must be a mistake – between two bars based on the same four-note diminished chord containing g, a possible g would require a cautionary , not to mention the tied g in violin II. It was most probably [A] that was the source of the mistake, since the  in FE was added only just in print. The mark was added in GE3.  

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors repeated in GE

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