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. 9

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

g repeated in FE (→GE)

g  tied in EE
..

There is no indication that the tie of EE could be authentic. It is also difficult to say what the motivation to add this tie was – b is not tied in analogous bar 4.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 12

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

..

In the French horns' part, both dyads on the 4th beat of the bar are quavers.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Dotted or even rhythm

b. 13

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

e1 in solo part in FE (→GE,EE)

e1 in orchestra part, suggested by the editors
..

According to us, Chopin wanted the e1 note in the 1st quaver in the top voice to be printed in a smaller font as belonging to the orchestral part only (to avoid ambiguities in the main text, we move it to the upper stave).
The thesis is supported by the following arguments: 

  • it is natural that the shape of the accompaniment is clearly outlined from the 1st figure; beginning the line of the top voice from e1 delays and hinders the development of the characteristic, wavy motif;
  • the version without e1, which we adopted in the main text, is present in analogous bar 54;
  • where the solo part begins or ends, the engravers would impart wrong values to certain notes on a number of occasions, e.g. in the 1st mov., bar 486 and 671. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 14

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

Grace note b1 in FE (→EE) 

Grace note d2 in GE
..

The version of GE is most probably a result of a Terzverschreibung error, perhaps repeated after FE, in which it was then corrected – it could be proved by various print faults in FE around this place. Chopin would often use this kind of grace notes in the octave texture – cf. e.g. the Concerto in F minor, op. 21, the 1st mov., bars 149-150, the Etude in B minor, op. 25, no. 11, bar 47 or Allegro de Concert, op. 46, bar 103 and 146. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error

b. 16

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

No sign in FE (→GE)

Arpeggio sign in EE
..

The arpeggio added in EE is most probably an arbitrary addition, which is proved by the Chopinesque proofreading of FE:

  • removed arpeggio mark, initially printed – perhaps by mistake – before that chord; traces of that procedure are clearly visible in FE;
  • the 1 digit added before the d1-f1 third in the last phase of proofreading (it is absent in GE); in this context, it has only one meaning, i.e. to perform the third simultaneously with the 1st finger.

A tenth chord, also without arpeggio and with the minor third on the black keys performed simultaneously with the 1st finger, marked by Chopin with a curly bracket, is featured in the Prelude in A major, op. 28, no. 7.
There is a similar situation in analogous bar 57, see also the note below.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE