mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 76-77

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

No  sign in FE (→GE,EE)

Probable interpretation

Possible interpretation

Our variant suggestion
..

The pedalling of FE seems to be incomplete – there is no musical justification for omitting the  marking in bar 76; this bar ends the line, which promotes oversights. However, it cannot be ruled out that it is the  marking in bar 77 that was written or left by mistake. Uncertain as to what Chopin's intention was, in the main text we leave the consideration of a pedal change in this place to the discretion of the performer.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , No pedal release mark

b. 77

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

c1 in FE, probable interpretation

c1 in FE (possible interpretation→GE,EE)
..

In FE, there is one mark before the 7th quaver, a  at the pitch of b, so it is unclear whether it concerns the bottom note of the third (resulting in a) or the top one (resulting in c1). In the orchestra, the chord features c1 in the viola part, both in MFrorch and FEorch. Two possibilities arise:

  1. FE do not contain a manifest error, it is only the  raising a to a (necessary) that was put a little bit too high; it leads to the version with c1 (the  from the 1st half of the bar is valid), in which the c1 note in violas is of a replaceable character. When reading FE, this version is a natural choice and this is how this place was interpreted in GE (however, adding a  in the viola part) and EE. It cannot be excluded that it was performed in such a way by Chopin's pupils during lessons, hence the absence of corrections in the pupils' copies may point to c1.
  2. According to Chopin's intention, the sharp in FE was meant to restore c1, whereas the alteration of a to a, obvious with regard to the sharps in the R.H., was overlooked. Undoubtedly, c1 in violas definitely supports this version, since the use of a chord element is highly likely in such orchestral accompaniment. The pedalling also seems to favour this possibility, since a pedal release (or change) before the 4th crotchet in the bar in the version with c1 would not be necessary (cf. the authentic pedalling in a similar harmonic context in the Fantaisie in F minor, op. 49, bar 18).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 86

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

..

The sources differ in the notation of the accidentals in the 2nd half of the bar; however, none of them includes a manifest error. In relation to the notation adopted in the main text (note number in brackets):

  • in FE (→EE1), there is no  before e2 (1) or a  before a2 (6), in turn, there is a  before c2 (11);
  • in GE1 (→GE2) and EE2 (→EE3), there is no  before e2 (1), but there is a  before c2 (11);
  • in GE3, there is no  before f2 (10).

Above all, the differences result from different conventions of validity of the marks next to the notes that are included or not included by an octave sign.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 88-90

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

..

In FE, there is no  raising a2 to a2 on the 4th beat of bars 88 and 90. The marks were added both in GE and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , Omission of current key accidentals , Last key signature sign

b. 91

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

Quintuplet in FE (probable reading→GE,EE)

Triplet in FE, possible interpretation
..

The rhythmic division of the 4th beat of the bar is not certain in FE – the digit '5' is put over the fourth semiquaver (in the group of five). The correct digit was either inaccurately placed (the '5' describing the quintuplet should be over the 3rd note) or the engraver inserted the '5' by mistake instead of a '3' marking the last three semiquavers as a triplet. None of the pupils' copies includes hints on rhythm. In the main text, we adopt the first possibility, based on an assumption that the notation of FE, although inaccurate, does not contain a mistake. The version with quintuplet, written unambiguously, is present in GE and EE. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions