mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in FE

b. 285

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

No slur in FE (→GE1→GE2)

Slur in EE & GE3
..

The missing slur in FE (→GE1→GE2) must be an oversight of the engraver (or of Chopin in [A]) – cf. all 7 similar bars.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 290

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

d2 in FE (→GE1)

b2 in EE, GE2 (→GE3) & FED
..

The version with d2 as the 10th semiquaver present in FE (→GE1) is almost certainly erroneous. It is proved by the comparison with analogous bars 289 and 305-306 as well as by the correction in FED, indicated probably by Chopin. Corresponding corrections were introduced also in EE and GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 312-313

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

Slur c2-b1 in FE (→GE)

Tie to c2 in EE
..

Due to the strict analogy between these bars and bars 296-297 (encompassing the entire, several-bar-long fragment), the version of EE, preserving this strict analogy, may correspond to Chopin's intention. In this bar, the slur in bar 313 could have been placed on the wrong side of the c2 crotchet, which would happen in the Chopinesque first editions, cf. e.g. the Concerto in F minor, op. 21, the 3rd mov., bars 172-173. However, in the main text we leave the version of FE (→GE), since both places differ in the orchestral part: in bars 296-297, the tied c2 crotchet is doubled in flute I, whereas in bars 312-313 – it is not. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Sign reversal

b. 323

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

b & b in FE (→GE1→GE2), contextual interpretation, & GE3

b & b in EE
..

In FE (→GE1→GE2), the  raising the 2nd semiquaver to b is not cancelled, hence the 7th semiquaver should also be interpreted as b. It must be a mistake, corrected in EE and GE3. Although the reviser of GE3 corrected only the erroneously written note, adding a  before it, in EE, the  before the 2nd note was removed, which changed its pitch to b. This version, although possible both from the musical and pianistic point of view, is, however, certainly arbitrary – the traces visible in FE prove that the  was added only at the stage of proofreading, almost certainly at Chopin's request, who, in turn, did not participate in the proofreading process of EE. In the main text, we give the version of FE, corrected by Chopin, written correctly in GE3.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 325

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

..

In FE (→EE1), there is no  restoring a2 in the last pair of semiquavers. This patent inadvertence was added in GE and EE2 (→EE3). In the same editions, a cautionary  before the 5th semiquaver a1 was also added, which we include in the main text, as well as a  before c3, which does not seem to be necessary. In turn, we preserve the formally unnecessary  before e2 in the 5th pair of semiquavers, present in all editions.  

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals