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. 85

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

4+3 in FE (→EE) & GE3

5+2 in GE1 (→GE2)

Completed FE version
..

Nothing supports the authenticity of the rhythm in GE1 (→GE2). The very likely mistake was corrected in GE3 by restoring the version of FE (→EE). (NB. the traces visible in FE suggest that the mistake could have been committed already in FE and corrected therein in the last phase of proofreading).
In the main text, we clarify the rhythm by adding a triplet marking. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

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

b. 91

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

Quintuplet in FE (probable reading→GE,EE)

Triplet in FE, possible interpretation
..

The rhythmic division of the 4th beat of the bar is not certain in FE – the digit '5' is put over the fourth semiquaver (in the group of five). The correct digit was either inaccurately placed (the '5' describing the quintuplet should be over the 3rd note) or the engraver inserted the '5' by mistake instead of a '3' marking the last three semiquavers as a triplet. None of the pupils' copies includes hints on rhythm. In the main text, we adopt the first possibility, based on an assumption that the notation of FE, although inaccurate, does not contain a mistake. The version with quintuplet, written unambiguously, is present in GE and EE. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 91

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

..

In FE (→EE), the duration of the 3rd semiquaver on the last beat of the bar is increased to a crotchet. Going beyond the beat of the bar, which makes no music sense, must be a mistake – cf. analogous bar 52 where the corresponding note is a quaver. In GE, the prolongation of this note was omitted, probably in order to avoid a troublesome, incomprehensible element of notation. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

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