mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Annotations in FEJ

b. 149

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

..

In FE (→GE1), the last 8 notes are written as 2 groups of semiquavers. The division into groups suggests that Chopin meant a strict and regular division, so the notes should be demisemiquavers. A respective change was introduced in EE and GE2 (→GE3). Additional beams were added also in FEJ, although it is impossible to confirm the authenticity of such a non-characteristic entry. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Annotations in FEJ , Errors repeated in GE

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. 582

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

 in FE (→EE), contextual interpretation

No accidental in GE
..

In FE (→EE), the sharp is placed over the grupetto mark. The patent mistake was corrected in GE by removing the erroneous mark. In the main text, we move the  to under the grupetto, since c​​​​​​​2 as the bottom note of the grupetto seems to be more natural than c2, and the intended mark  () having been misplaced is more likely than the erroneous one having been added in a place where it was totally absent.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Annotations in FEJ , Errors repeated in EE