mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic post-publication changes and variants

b. 60

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

No ornament in FE (→GE,EE)

Arpeggio sign in FEH

Our variant suggestion
..

Taking into account a high likelihood of authenticity of other entries in FEH in this fragment, cf. bar 57, 58, 59 and 61, we consider this entry to be most likely authentic and include it in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH

b. 61

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

No arpeggio passage in FE (→GE,EE)

Probable interpre­tation of arpeggio written in FES, contextual interpretation

Arpeggio written into FEH, literal reading

Arpeggio in FEH, possible interpretation 
..

We reproduce the insertion in FEH in its literal form, interpreting the antepenultimate note as a harmonically justified a2, and not b2. It is unclear whether the added passage was meant to complete the arpeggiated chord or to replace it; we consider the first possibility to be more likely. According to us, one also cannot rule out that this entry is a kind of an abbreviation – it defines a model that is to be developed into a longer figuration. We suggest a possible addition based on this assumption as an alternative interpretation of the entry. At the same time, in the descending part of the passage, we use the idea included in a variant in FES, left without placement, which is clearly similar in terms of rhythm, interval structure and hand position.
Irrespective of the problems concerning the interpretation of the insertion in FEH discussed above, its very presence is a proof that the entry of FES should be situated in this place in spite of the missing  lowering c3 to c3 – such inaccuracies are typical of Chopin's notation and belong to the most frequent flaws in the notation of his works.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Accidentals in different octaves , Annotations in FES , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH

b. 63

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

FE (→GE,EE)

FEH
..

The authenticity of the variant written in FEH seems to be highly likely (like in the case of the remaining variants in this movement of the Concerto – see e.g. bar 29 or 57). It is noteworthy that this version, although it does not strictly correspond to the orchestral part, results in a smoother combination of bars 63-64 when performed on one piano. According to us, such a subtle and dexterous consideration of the specific nature of the one-piano version's sound clearly points to Chopin being the author of this variant.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH

b. 91

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

a1 in FE (→GE,EE)

f1 in FEH
..

The variant written in FEH bears all the hallmarks of authenticity – pianistic and harmonic dexterity as well as the smoothness of the transition to the next bar (cf. a similar procedure in the variants added in the Nocturne in D major, op. 27, no. 2, bar 38). The manner of notation is also compliant with similar entries in the copies containing annotations whose Chopinesque origin is confirmed. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH