mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in 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

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. 79

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

..

In FE, there are no accidentals before the 2nd octave, which is a patent oversight, corrected both in GE and EE. A sharp before a2 was added also in FES.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Errors in FE , Omission of current key accidentals , Annotations in FES , Last key signature sign

b. 87

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

Fingering in FE (literal reading→GE)

Fingering in FE, contextual interpretation

Fingering in EE
..

When interpreted literally, the fingering in FE raises doubts due to its problematic purpose – the 5th finger on D is most obvious in this context and it is difficult to imagine why Chopin would have wanted to indicate its use right here. According to us, the engraver assigned the digit to a wrong note, hence in the main text we place it under d, where such information is useful.
In EE, Fontana, as well as in a few other places (e.g. in bar 79), copied the change of fingers to d, which, in the light of the authentic articulation, staccato on D, is a totally unjustified complication. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE

b. 87

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

Minim c2 on 2nd beat in sources

Minim c2 on 3rd beat suggested by the editors
..

The version of FE (→GE,EE), although it apparently does not contain a mistake, is certainly erroneous, since it does not correspond to the orchestral part in FEorch – c2, performed by the 1st clarinet, should still sound on the 4th beat of the bar. The harmonic consequences of this discrepancy are practically imperceptible when maintaining the authentic pedalling (this explains the absence of corrections in the pupils' copies), yet the tenth chord, requiring an arpeggio, constitutes an unnecessary pianistic complication. According to us, the c2 minim was most probably misplaced under the 2nd crotchet instead of under the 3rd one, hence in the main text we suggest changing it accordingly.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in FE