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. 43

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

c2 in FE (→GE,EE)

c2 in FEH, contextual interpretation
..

None of the first editions includes a  raising c2 to c2 in the 4th third or a  restoring c2 on the last quaver in the 2nd triplet. It is most likely another – cf. bar 39 and 41 – oversight of Chopin, although definitely more serious and more difficult to explain. The phrase (bars 43-46) develops the two preceding ones (two-bar ones); there is no reason for the melodic shape of the discussed place, clearly referring to the beginnings of bars 39 and 41, presenting the same idea, to differ from them. This statement is confirmed by analogous phrases in bars 88, 90 and 92. A similar oversight of an alteration of a note and its later cancellation happened to Chopin in the Etude in F minor, op. 25, no. 2, bar 56. In FEH, a  before the 4th third was added probably by Chopin himself or under his suggestion. Taking into consideration the above arguments, we introduce this correction to the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FEH

b. 44

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

b1 in chord in FE (→EE1) & EE3

No b1 in GE & EE2
..

The missing b1 note on the last quaver in GE may be an oversight. According to us, however, it is more likely that Chopin added this note in the last proofreading of FE. It is indicated by visible traces of changes in FE, i.e. an inaccurate alignment of the upper section of the stem, reaching this note, with respect to the lower one, which would be impossible if the entire stem was engraved as one line, and the trace of removing b1 in the last chord in the R.H. Therefore, the proofreading would consist in replacing the broad chord in the R.H. (with a span of a ninth) – b1-e2-b2-c3 – with an easier chord – c2-e2-b2-c3 – and in adding a b1 to the last chord in the L.H.
In EE2 the b1 was probably deleted due to a comparison with a copy of GE; the correct text was reinstated in EE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 44

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

2 arpeggio signs in FE (→EE)

Arpeggio sign in GE

Our alternative suggestion
..

The missing arpeggio wavy line before the 2nd crotchet is probably an oversight of the engraver of GE. However, it is also possible that the mark in FE was added only in the last proofreading, which was not included in GE. A comparison with analogous bar 93 suggests that the arpeggio on the 3rd beat of the bar could have been misprinted (it should be before the 2nd chord).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 44

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

..

In FE, there is no accidental before the topmost note of the 2nd chord. This patent mistake – see the chord in the L.H. on the 4th quaver – was corrected both in GE and EE. A sharp was added also in FES.

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

b. 44

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

..

In FE, the  before the chord on the last quaver is placed at the pitch of c1 instead of e1. This patent mistake was corrected in GE and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions