mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in FE

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

b. 49

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

..

In FE (→GE1→GE2), there is no accidental before the 4th demisemiquaver before last. The missing  must be a mistake in this context, probably repeated after [A], since such inaccuracies in the notation of accidentals are typical of Chopin. The sharp was added in EE and in GE3; in the latter, another defect of Chopin's notation was removed – the unnecessarily repeated  before a2 in the 3rd group of semiquavers. The sharp in the discussed place could have been added in FEH – see the adjacent note. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Omission of current key accidentals , Last key signature sign , Errors repeated in GE

b. 53

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

 in FE

 in GE

in EE
..

The differences in the notation of the f1 crotchet at the beginning of the 2nd half of the bar is probably a result of a mistake of the engraver of FE and revisions of the remaining editors. The dotted crotchet in the versions of FE and GE – regardless of the notation manner – implies a momentaneous split of the most bottom of the three upper voices, which, until that moment, was consistently led from the beginning of that phrase in bar 52. Due to this reason, we consider the crotchet in EE to be the most probably correct, where the natural sequence of the three upper voices, corresponding to Violin I, Violin II and Viola, is maintained.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 73

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

f in FE (→EE)

d in GE & FES
..

FE feature an erroneous f on the 2nd quaver, which can be considered a result of an oversight of a  before this note or a Terzverschreibung error. Oversights of marks in such situations are very frequent in Chopin's, and not only, works, hence we adopt the version with f as the text of FE (in the version "editors"). FE was interpreted in the same way in EE; a  was added also in FEH. This prescriptive, "routine" addition, however, does not take into consideration a broader context – the accompaniment structure in bars 71-76 clearly indicates a Terzverschreibung error, hence a d note. Such an interpretation was adopted in GE; it is also confirmed by the correction in FES. According to us, the entry in FEH does not have to mean that Chopin paid attention to this place – the mistake is so blatant that the pupil could have introduced the correction by herself still before presenting this movement to the composer.  

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEH