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. 112

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

Fingering written into FES

Fingering written into FEH

No teaching fingering
..

The digit, marking the hand position, written in FES most probably defines the same fingering that was described in FEH in more detail.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 112

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

Fingering written into FES
 
..

The fingering of FES confirms the authenticity of the repetition of the c2 note at the beginning of the 2nd half of the bar – see the previous note.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES

b. 113

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

f2 in FE (→GE,EE)

e2 in FES
..

The change of f2 to e2, written in FES, restoring the regular structure of figurations, may be considered an alternative variant suggestion in relation to the printed version, which could be supported by the lack of a corresponding correction in the remaining pupils' copies. According to us, it is, however, more likely that the change is of a definitive nature or that it is simply a correction of a mistake – the piano performs a figurative background for the theme; in this final section, heading for the coda, this background is based on gently waving passages of a rather schematic structure. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Errors in FE , Annotations in FES

b. 113

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

Slur over 6 notes in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slur over 9 notes in GE3
..

The traces of corrections in print visible in FE prove that both in this bar and in analogous bar 111, it was only the last semiquaver triplet in the L.H. that was originally encompassed with a slur. In both places, Chopin prolonged the slurs; however, in the discussed bar, the proofread slur did not encompass the first triplet in the 2nd half of the bar. Taking into account the fact that in the final fragment of this movement of the Concerto, filled with triplets, articulation in all the remaining semiquavers is defined with slurs and staccato marks, the fact of leaving one triplet without markings prompts us to suspect a mistake at the time of implementing this proofreading (the mistake could have been provoked by the misplaced  mark). Therefore, in the main text we suggest a longer slur, modelled after unequivocal bar 111. Such a change was introduced in GE3.  

category imprint: Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 113

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

..

In the sources, there is no  lowering c2 to c2 before the 5th semiquaver in the L.H., which is a typical Chopinesque inaccuracy. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in FE , Accidentals in different octaves , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE