mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors repeated in GE

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. 155

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

 under 2nd quaver in FE (→GE,EE)

 under E suggested by the editors
..

Placing the  mark only just under the 2nd quaver must be a result of misunderstanding of the notation of the handwritten base text – due to the lack of space, Chopin would often put pedalling marks next to low-located notes.

category imprint: Interpretations within context

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 252

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

..

In FE (→GE1→GE2), there is only a  mark in this bar. It may be a trace of a more serious mistake, encompassing half of the line (4 bars) – the mark is missing in bar 249, opening the line. However, taking into account the unquestionable pedalling indications in the subsequent bars, we assume that it was simply a  mark that was overlooked at the beginning of the bar in the discussed place. A corresponding mark was added already in EE and GE3.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Errors repeated in GE

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. 408

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

..

In FE (→EE), there is no  restoring g1 in the chromatic sequence in the R.H. In GE, this patent mistake was corrected. In addition, in FE there is no  raising c1 to c​​​​​​​1 in the L.H. This mistake was corrected both in GE and EE. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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