mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 91

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

No marks in FE (→EE)

Wedges in GE
..

According to us, the missing wedges over the topmost notes on the 2nd and 3rd beats of the bar is an inaccuracy – cf. the wedges in analogous bar 42 as well as the precise notation in bar 89. Due to this reason, we introduce the markings added in GE to the main text, although the likelihood of them having been added by Chopin is marginal.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 91

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

..

In FE, there are no accidentals before the 4th semiquaver in the R.H. and the bottom note of the 3rd quaver in the L.H. Oversights of the symbols of the current key, typical of Chopin, were corrected both in GE and EE. A sharp in the L.H. was added also in FEH and FES. In the latter, cautionary double sharps before f2 on the 2nd and 4th beats of the bar were also added.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Annotations in FES , Last key signature sign , Annotations in FEH

b. 93-94

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

..

In all sources, except for GE3, the three lowest octaves in the bass sequence are written in an abbreviated manner with the use of 8 digits.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: GE revisions , Abbreviated octaves' notation

b. 93

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

c2 in chord in FE (→EE) & GE3

b1 in GE1 (→GE2)
..

The version of GE1 (→GE2) is most probably erroneous – even if we assumed that Chopin took part in the preparations of GE1, the use of b1 in this context would have required a cautionary . In GE3, it was considered a mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 94

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

FE (literal reading) & EE3

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

EE1 (→EE2) – probable interpretation of FE

GE3, contextual interpretation
..

The rhythmic notation of the 1st half of the bar in FE is unclear – according to the written rhythmic values, the group of 20 demisemiquavers begins after the e4 semiquaver, yet according to the arrangement of notes – after the quaver. In GE1 (→GE2), the arrangement of notes was changed; however, a mistake in the beam arrangement was committed, as a result of which both e4 notes are semiquavers; after correcting the mistake, the version of GE1 (→GE2) constitutes a possible interpretation of the notation of FE. The version of EE1 (→EE2) suggests another interpretation, where the first e4 is a quaver. According to us, it is more likely that it is the second version that corresponds to Chopin's intention, hence we give it in the main text. In GE3, another mistake was added to the mistake of the previous GE – a wrong arrangement of the quavers in the L.H. with respect to the R.H. EE3 reinstated 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