mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic post-publication changes and variants

b. 153

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

FE (→GE,EE)

Arpeggio sign given by Mikuli

Variant given by Mikuli

Our variant suggestion
..

Both variants were given in the edition edited by Chopin's pupil, Karol Mikuli (Kistner, Leipzig 1879). Mikuli did not specify their origin, but defining the variant with the group of 6 semiquavers as "performance after Chopin" suggests memories and notes from the time of personal contacts between the editor and composer. It is also known that Mikuli had some insight into currently lost pupils' copies of Chopin's other pupils, e.g. Fryderyka Streicher-Müller (cf. the Sonata in B minor, op. 35, the 1st mov., bar 120). In the main text, we suggest the version of FE (→GE,EE), with a possibility of including the arpeggio of the third, indicated by Mikuli.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants

b. 162

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

..

The differences in the number and pitch of the notes following the first b1 are discussed in the previous note, together with rhythmic differences.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FED , Authentic post-publication changes and variants

b. 197

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

Continuous slur in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Separate slurs in FED & GE3
..

The unbroken – in spite of the rest – slur of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2) must be a remaining part of the original version of the rhythm (with semiquavers without rest). The need to separate the first two notes from the following semiquavers was confirmed by Chopin with additional marks written in pencil in FED – a slashed line, underlining the significance of the rest (also in bar 201), as well as a slur over the first two semiquavers. Taking that into account, in the main text, we divide the slur, adjusting the phrasing to the rhythmic notation.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , GE revisions , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Inserted rest

b. 315-316

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

No slurs in FE (→GE,EE)

Slurs written into FED
..

In the main text, we include the slurs added in FED, running from the 2nd semiquaver to the octave on the 2nd beat of the bar. According to us, it specifies the notation and harmonises with the printed notation – cf. the slurs in the L.H. in these bars and the slur in the R.H. in bar 317.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Authentic post-publication changes and variants

b. 401

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

f1 in FE (→GE,EE)

f1 in FEH, probable reading
..

The mark in the form of a diagonal cross written in FEH before the 1st grace note of the bar is probably a ​​​​​​​ raising f​​​​​​​1 to f​​​​​​​​​​​​​​1. At the same time, it cannot be excluded that, according to the intention of the writing person, it should apply both to this grace note and the first out of four small notes ending the trill. However, we have to point out that this mark may be simply one of the crosses with which Chopin would often mark the places discussed during a lesson.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH