Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Dating and identification of the first English edition poses certain difficulties. Some data indicate 1834 as the year in which Wessel published Op. 11*:

• Plate number, placed between the numbers for Opp. 13 and 14 (1083 and 1084) and those for Opp. 15 and 16 (1093 and 1094). All four Opuses were released in 1834:
  – Op. 13 in April, or perhaps in July,
  – Op. 14 probably in May,
  – Op. 15 in January,
  – Op. 16 probably in August.
  While succession of publication dates does not always strictly correspond to the order of plate numbers, the discrepancies rarely exceed a few months.
• Covers of Opp. 13 and 16, released in 1834, where the Concerto is mentioned among Chopin's already published pieces by Wessel.

On the other hand, the copy of the earliest known impression of EE presented in the system cannot come from 1834, since the cover mentions already the Polonaise Op. 3, published only just in April 1836. Even if, for some reasons, the publication of the Concerto was delayed, the item's review published in July 1835 proves that EE1 must have been available at that time. Therefore, there must have been an earlier impression whose copy has not been found yet. 

The question is how that impression differed from the one we present in mUltimate Chopin. In accordance with the information on the cover – "edited and fingered by his [Chopin's] pupil, A. [sic!] Fontana" – the copy bears traces of a thorough revision and contains a number of additional fingering indications. Therefore, it seems likely that some of the changes were introduced only just in the second impression. However, if that was the case, the publisher would have most probably wanted to take financial advantage of the efforts put into the development of a corrected edition and would have advertised it as a "new, revised edition," as he did in the case of the Etudes Op. 10. Moreover, even in May 1834, EE1 was delayed by already a year with respect to FE1, on which it was based. Therefore, Wessel had plenty of time to enable Fontana to add fingering and perform a thorough revision of text. Due to the above reasons, the editors of mUltimate Chopin believe that the available copies most probably differ from the actual first impression in the cover only, hence we mark it with the symbol EE1. We adopt May 1834 as the date of the first impression – it is given by Brown** and corresponds to the above findings.

EE1 encompasses the Concerto in a version for one piano; just like in the case of the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, the orchestral material was not printed by Wessel. In accordance with what was said above, EE1 reproduced the text of FE with numerous corrections and additions. The revision was thorough – a significant number of patent mistakes and inaccuracies was corrected, e.g.:

• the majority of overlooked accidentals was added, including almost all mentioned in the characterization of FE (except bar 408),
• some unnecessary marks were removed, e.g. the  in bar 309,
• rhythmic mistakes were corrected, e.g. in bar 33, 68 and 72, 149,
• a  mark was added in bar 249 and  in bar 252.

In addition, less obvious changes may often be considered accurate, or at least justified, e.g.:

• added slurs in the L.H. after the R.H. in bars 14-16, 139-140 and analog., 
• other additions of slurs in bar 113, 192-193, 295, 311 (inaccurately),
• changes to the range of slurs, e.g. in bar 36, 50-51,
• sustaining the bass B in bars 77-78 and 81-82,
• addition of an accent in bar 104,
• change of the type of grace notes in bar 250,
• change of mutual alignment of the parts of both hands in bar 253, which specified the rhythm of the group of 7 semiquavers in the R.H.,
• added pedalling in bar 284, 
• revised length of the dynamic hairpin in bar 285,
• change of d² to b¹ in bar 290,
• change of a slur (perhaps erroneous) to a tie in bars 312-313,

However, nothing indicates that Chopin could have participated in the development of EE – all changes and additions with respect to FE may be explained by actions of the reviser, particularly since it was Fontana, who was friends with Chopin and who knew his output.

Moreover, some arbitrary changes, which do not fit into the categories discussed above, were introduced, e.g.:

• doubled slurs encompassing pairs of octaves, e.g. in bar 60,
• tied b¹ in bars 65-66 and 73-74, e in bars 125-126,
• rests added to the bottom voice of the melody in bar 76,
• changed shape of the melody in bar 162,
• added cautionary accidentals, e.g. a  before f² in bar 198, 
• short accents were changed to vertical ones in bar 210, 320 and 325-328,
• a  mark was added in bar 288,
• the B-a seventh was changed to a B-b octave in bar 321.

Some mistakes remained unnoticed during the revision, e.g. .

EE1 committed also new mistakes, e.g.:

• overlooked tie of b in bars 88-89,
• overlooked stem extending a in bar 170, stem and dot next to b in bar 181,
• overlooked slur in bar 199,

As far as Fontana's fingering is concerned, although it is compliant with Chopinesque entries in pupil's copies in many cases, most probably, it was not consulted with Chopin. However, one cannot exclude that Fontana got to know the composer's fingering to a certain extent, since he was in close touch with Chopin at the time the Concerto was being created. On the other hand, it seems impossible that he could have memorised detailed indications for the entire Concerto in this respect, hence the authenticity of Fontana's particular suggestions is to be approached with great caution. Wherever FE gives Chopinesque fingering, Fontana would generally leave it unchanged, he would at best complete it. However, there are a few exceptions, e.g. in bar 478. 

* These pieces of information are to be found in Annotated Catalogue Online, by Christophe Grabowski and John Rink.
** Maurice J.E. Brown, Chopin: An index of his works in chronological order (Macmillan, 1960).