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. 109

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

Fingering written into FES

Fingering written into FEH

No fingering in FE (→GE)

Fingering in EE
..

The fingerings of three sources, although marked differently, are completely compliant.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEH

b. 109

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

No fingering in FE (→GE)

Fingering in EE
..

In this bar, differently than in analogous bar 105, the fingering added by Fontana in EE clarifies the combination of the scale sequence with the figure based on the broken chord.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 110

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

Wedge in FE (→EE)

No mark in GE
..

The missing wedge in GE may be a mere oversight; however, taking into account possible corrections of FE in the R.H., we assume that it is more likely that the wedge was added by Chopin in the last phase of proofreading of FE. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 110

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

6 staccato dots in FE (→EE)

4 dots in GE1 (→GE2)

2 dots in GE3
..

The two missing staccato dots in the R.H. at the beginning of the 2nd beat of the bar in GE is a mistake repeated most probably after the proof copy of FE. It is indicated by numerous traces of proofreading of slurring in FE – at the time of removing the original slur, which reached to the end of the 3rd semiquaver triplet only, the discussed dots were probably also removed (they are the closest to the original slur), which got to GE, while in FE it was completed in the last phase of proofreading. Cf. the note at the beginning of this bar.
The fact of removing the first two dots also in the L.H. is an arbitrary revision of GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 110

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

Fingering written into FES

No teaching fingering
..

The digits written in FES in pencil are not only poorly visible, but they could have also been changed, as a result of which one can see more than one digit in some of the annotations. The markings over c3 (4?), c3 (4 or 5) and f2 and e2 (1 or 2) are particularly difficult to decipher. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES