mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 37

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

Fingering written into FEH

No teaching fingering
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FEH

b. 37

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

No slurs in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

2 slurs in GE3

2 slurs suggested by the editors
..

Nothing indicates a change of the performance manner of typical quaver accompaniment figures in this bar. Therefore, we consider the missing slurs to be an oversight and suggest adding them. Identical slurs were added in GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 38

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

Fingering written into FEH

Fingering written into FES

No fingering in FE (→GE)

Fingering in EE
..

The fingering in FES was written in pencil, by Chopin's hand, except for the 1 digit, written in quill by the owner of the collection including this copy. Miss Stirling would often 'enhance' the Chopinesque entries with ink to increase their legibility and sometimes even to save them from disappearing due to the wear of graphite (e.g. in the next bar). We include this fingering, being authentic, in the main text. In turn, the fingering in FEH, written by a foreign hand, raises doubts, since it did not take into account a longer hold of the f note, copied by Chopin. Fontana's fingering in EE is also questionable – see bar 25.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEH

b. 39

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

..

In the last third on the 3rd crotchet in the bar in FE (→GE1→GE2), there is no  restoring e2. The correct notation is featured in EE and GE3; the mark was also added in FES. In melodic lines led in thirds, such mistakes would happen to Chopin quite often – cf. e.g. bars 88 and 90 in this movement of the Concerto as well as the Etude in G minor, op. 25, no. 6, bar 12 or the Mazurka in E major, op. 6, no. 3, bars 11, 13 and analog. A similar situation in bar 41.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Annotations in FES , Errors repeated in GE

b. 39

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

..

In FE (→EE,GE1→GE2), there are accidentals before the 2nd semiquaver in the 2nd half of the bar, repeated after the last semiquaver in the 1st half. The superfluous marks were removed in GE3. A similar situation in bar 41 and 88 and 90.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals