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
Pitch
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Pitch

b. 61

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

No arpeggio passage in FE (→GE,EE)

Probable interpre­tation of arpeggio written in FES, contextual interpretation

Arpeggio written into FEH, literal reading

Arpeggio in FEH, possible interpretation 
..

We reproduce the insertion in FEH in its literal form, interpreting the antepenultimate note as a harmonically justified a2, and not b2. It is unclear whether the added passage was meant to complete the arpeggiated chord or to replace it; we consider the first possibility to be more likely. According to us, one also cannot rule out that this entry is a kind of an abbreviation – it defines a model that is to be developed into a longer figuration. We suggest a possible addition based on this assumption as an alternative interpretation of the entry. At the same time, in the descending part of the passage, we use the idea included in a variant in FES, left without placement, which is clearly similar in terms of rhythm, interval structure and hand position.
Irrespective of the problems concerning the interpretation of the insertion in FEH discussed above, its very presence is a proof that the entry of FES should be situated in this place in spite of the missing  lowering c3 to c3 – such inaccuracies are typical of Chopin's notation and belong to the most frequent flaws in the notation of his works.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Accidentals in different octaves , Annotations in FES , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH

b. 63

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

FE (→GE,EE)

FEH
..

The authenticity of the variant written in FEH seems to be highly likely (like in the case of the remaining variants in this movement of the Concerto – see e.g. bar 29 or 57). It is noteworthy that this version, although it does not strictly correspond to the orchestral part, results in a smoother combination of bars 63-64 when performed on one piano. According to us, such a subtle and dexterous consideration of the specific nature of the one-piano version's sound clearly points to Chopin being the author of this variant.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH

b. 72

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

..

In all sources, except for GE3, double sharps were unnecessarily repeated before the semiquaver f1-f2 octave.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals

b. 73

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

f in FE (→EE)

d in GE & FES
..

FE feature an erroneous f on the 2nd quaver, which can be considered a result of an oversight of a  before this note or a Terzverschreibung error. Oversights of marks in such situations are very frequent in Chopin's, and not only, works, hence we adopt the version with f as the text of FE (in the version "editors"). FE was interpreted in the same way in EE; a  was added also in FEH. This prescriptive, "routine" addition, however, does not take into consideration a broader context – the accompaniment structure in bars 71-76 clearly indicates a Terzverschreibung error, hence a d note. Such an interpretation was adopted in GE; it is also confirmed by the correction in FES. According to us, the entry in FEH does not have to mean that Chopin paid attention to this place – the mistake is so blatant that the pupil could have introduced the correction by herself still before presenting this movement to the composer.  

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEH

b. 74-75

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

..

In FES, there are added sharps before e2 in the 2nd half of bar 74 and E in the 2nd half of bar 75. The marks are of a cautionary nature and were most probably added by the pupil. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES