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. 93-94

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

..

In all sources, except for GE3, the three lowest octaves in the bass sequence are written in an abbreviated manner with the use of 8 digits.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: GE revisions , Abbreviated octaves' notation

b. 93

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

c2 in chord in FE (→EE) & GE3

b1 in GE1 (→GE2)
..

The version of GE1 (→GE2) is most probably erroneous – even if we assumed that Chopin took part in the preparations of GE1, the use of b1 in this context would have required a cautionary . In GE3, it was considered a mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 94

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

FE (literal reading) & EE3

GE1 (→GE2), contextual interpretation (possible interpretation of FE)

EE1 (→EE2) – probable interpretation of FE

GE3, contextual interpretation
..

The rhythmic notation of the 1st half of the bar in FE is unclear – according to the written rhythmic values, the group of 20 demisemiquavers begins after the e4 semiquaver, yet according to the arrangement of notes – after the quaver. In GE1 (→GE2), the arrangement of notes was changed; however, a mistake in the beam arrangement was committed, as a result of which both e4 notes are semiquavers; after correcting the mistake, the version of GE1 (→GE2) constitutes a possible interpretation of the notation of FE. The version of EE1 (→EE2) suggests another interpretation, where the first e4 is a quaver. According to us, it is more likely that it is the second version that corresponds to Chopin's intention, hence we give it in the main text. In GE3, another mistake was added to the mistake of the previous GE – a wrong arrangement of the quavers in the L.H. with respect to the R.H. EE3 reinstated the unclear notation of FE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors

b. 94

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

FE (→EE)

GE1 (→GE2)

GE3
..

In the main text, we give the unequivocal rhythm of FE (→EE). In GE1 (→GE2), the whole group of 6 notes was combined by mistake with a demisemiquaver beam, which was revised in GE3 by adding the digit 6 and moving the last quaver in the L.H. under f2. It resulted in a totally arbitrary and still erroneous version, since the sextuplet should be written with semiquavers in this place.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors

b. 94

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

Fingering written into FES

Fingering written into FED

No teaching fingering
..

In the main text, we give the fingering written by Chopin in FES. The entry in FED most probably indicates the same fingering, specifying its most characteristic fragment.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Annotations in FES