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
Rhythm
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Rhythm

b. 58

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

..

In FE (→GE), the last quaver in the L.H. (e) was placed under b1 in the R.H., which does not correspond to the rhythmic relationship resulting from the even filling of the last three semiquavers in the bar with small notes in the R.H. It may correspond to the notation of [A], but neither the first publishers of Chopin's pieces nor the composer himself were always precise in this matter. Due to this reason, in the main text we place that e according to the rhythmic division, just before the 7th note of the roulade (g1). In EE, the quaver was placed even later than in FE (after c2), which must be an arbitrary decision of the editor (we reproduce this notation in graphic transcription only).
The performance should be based rather on intuition than on the geometry of the notation or strict calculations of rhythmic proportions, since both the context and the very notation suggest a sense of rhythmic freedom in this place.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE inaccuracies

b. 59

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

Slur (tenuto?) in FE

No slur/tie in GE

Tie to c3 in EE

Arpeggio written into FES, possible reading

Repeated c3 in FEH, literal reading
..

The meaning of the curved line between the c3 notes is unclear, particularly in FE where it does not reach the quaver. Chopin may have thought of a tenuto-slur; however, a different misunderstanding of the Chopinesque notation also cannot be excluded. In the main text, we omit this curved line, since, according to us, the prescriptive interpretation of the mark as a tie is erroneous.

The passage filling 5 quavers was added in FES on the margin, next to the line containing bars 59-62, without indicating the place it should be inserted in the printed text. According to us, there are two such places – the 1st half of bar 59 (as an A major passage) or 5 last quavers in bar 61 (as an A minor passage). The latter seems to be more likely due to a similar nature of the passage written in this bar in FEH, hence we adopt the variant placed in bar 61 as the text of FES.

The literal interpretation of the variant of FEH excludes a simultaneous application of the interpretation of the passage of FES discussed above. Another interpretation of the entry in FEH – see the note in the further part of this bar.    

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 63

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

No rests in FE

3 rests in GE1 (→GE2)

2 rests in EE

4 rests in GE3

Rest suggested by the editors
..

Chopin generally does not write rests in the solo part where the reduction of the orchestral part complements the rhythm – cf. e.g. bar 12, 22, 38 and analog. However, in this case the rhythmic values of both parts do not clearly combine themselves – the g2 quaver opening a new phrase in the solo piano seems to be inserted between the 3rd and 4th beats of the bar. Due to this reason, in the main text we clarify the rhythm by adding a rest. In EE and GE, two rests were added, filling the bar in the R.H. in the solo part, which may be considered justified. In turn, the additions of GE on the lower stave rather confuse the picture, particularly in GE1 (→GE2). 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 72-73

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

Minims in FE (→GE,EE)

Dotted minims suggested by the editors
..

The absence of the dots increasing the duration of the bass notes most probably results from an inaccurately implemented proofreading of FE, for in this edition, there are visible traces of correcting in print the first notes in the bar from the following notation:  (with dots increasing the duration of notes). The unintentional character of the omission of the dots is proved by bar 75 in which a strictly analogous figure was printed already in the final layout and with a dotted minim. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Source & stylistic information

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors resulting from corrections , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 73

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

d2 repeated in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

d2 tied in GE3
..

According to us, the absence of the tie of the d2 grace note is a mistake – Chopin would often use such a breakdown of octaves downwards written in this way, cf. e.g. the Concerto in F minor, op. 21, the 1st mov., bars 149-150, the Ballade in G minor, op. 23, bars 258-259 or Allegro de Concert, op. 46, bars 217 and 219.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions