Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

 b. 94

	GE1 (→GE2), contextual interpretation (possible interpretation of FE)
	GE3, contextual interpretation

The rhythmic notation of the 1st half of the bar in FE is unclear and inaccurate or even erroneous. The group of 20 notes fills two and a half quavers if we consider e⁴ to be a semiquaver (in accordance with the written value), or only two quavers if we take into account the arrangement of notes in the L.H. In both cases, these 20 notes should be, formally speaking, hemidemisemiquavers. However, since we often encounter the use of larger rhythmic values in irregular groups in Chopin's works (cf. e.g. the Concerto in F minor, op. 21, the 1st mov., bar 93), we leave the notation with demisemiquavers. There is one more issue to be resolved, i.e. the rhythmic value of the e⁴ note opening the roulade – according to us, the use of notation with the sustained first note is more justified if the sustained note is audibly perceptible thanks to the note played in the L.H. (d), hence in the second case. Therefore, it is this interpretation, adopted in EE1 (→EE2), that we give in the main text. In GE1 (→GE2), the arrangement of notes corresponds to the first of the given interpretations of FE. Consequently, we assume that this is what the engraver's intention was, whereas the change of the rhythmic value of the second e⁴ was simply a mistake. In GE3, the mistake was not corrected; however, the arrangement of notes was changed, which resulted in a totally rhythmically incomprehensible notation. An ill-considered revision was made in EE3 reinstating the unclear notation of FE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions, Errors in FE, Errors in GE, GE revisions, Rhythmic errors

notation: Rhythm