mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 42

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

..

In FE (→GE1), the top note of the 10th semiquaver is an a2 (with a ); a2 is then restored with a sharp at the beginning of the 4th beat in the bar. The unequivocal mistake of the engraver is confirmed by corrections in three out of four pupils' copies – FES, FEJ and FEH. Respective revisions were introduced also in EE and subsequent GE – in GE2, the erroneous  was changed to a , whereas in EE and GE3, both marks were removed.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEJ , Errors repeated in GE , Annotations in FEH

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. 45

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

..

In FE, the triplets on the 6th and 7th quavers in the bar open with a d2-c3 seventh. Chopin corrected those patent mistakes in FED; GE and EE also include the correct version. Entries in pencil are present also in FES and FEJ; however, their meaning is not entirely clear. In FES, something resembling note heads was added in pencil around the erroneous notes, yet they rather look like a deletion of c2 than an addition of a b2. In spite of this, since it is difficult to imagine a different aim of additions in this place, we assume that the intention of the person who wrote them, probably Chopin, was to correct the wrong notes. The entry in pencil in FEJ is even less obvious; it looks nothing like the Chopinesque entries – both erroneous notes were put in circles and a quite illegible sign was placed above each of them, perhaps a letter (b?). Therefore, it could mean that the entry was performed by an English-speaking person, hence, e.g. Miss Stirling, who undoubtedly copied the Chopinesque entries from her copies to the copies of Chopin's sister in other pieces.    

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FED , GE revisions , Annotations in FES

b. 47

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

..

In the main text, we add a cautionary  before e3. The mark was added both in GE and EE; it was also written in FEH (the mark's shape is not typical of Chopin's handwriting).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Annotations in FEH