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
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

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. 323

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

..

In the main text, we omit the reminding  present in all sources before the 11th semiquaver in the L.H., c1. In turn, we add a cautionary  before the 2nd semiquaver in the R.H. (g1) and a before the 5th semiquaver b1. The first mark was added already in GE, together with a poorly justified  before the f2 crotchet. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals

b. 323

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

crescendo under L.H. in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

crescendo between staves in GE3
..

In this context, the crescendo marking certainly refers to the parts of both hands, hence placing it under the bottom stave most probably resulted from lack of space between the staves in FE or perhaps also in [A] (cf. the indications in bars 324-326). Due to this reason, in the main text we move this indication to between the staves; the change was introduced already in GE3. In GE and EE, the indication was given the form of a standard abbreviation.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 324

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

..

In the main text, we add a cautionary  before the a2 crotchet. The mark was added also in EE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions

b. 324

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

Fingering written into FEH

No fingering in FE (→GE)

Fontana's fingering in EE, contextual interpretation
..

In FEH, the fingering digits for the 5th and 4th last semiquavers – 1-2 – are written twice, with different pencils. Since it was the same digits that were written twice, it seems that the person who was writing them for the second time did not notice the notation or wanted to enhance its legibility. In both cases, one of the writing persons could have been Chopin, hence we include those digits in the main text. The fingering digit given for the 9th semiquaver in EE is most probably erroneous – we are almost certainly talking about the 2nd finger and not third, as the digit '2' should be understood in the English system of marking fingers.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in EE , Annotations in FEH