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. 94

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

FE (→EE)

GE1 (→GE2)

GE3
..

In the main text, we give the unequivocal rhythm of FE (→EE). In GE1 (→GE2), the whole group of 6 notes was combined by mistake with a demisemiquaver beam, which was revised in GE3 by adding the digit 6 and moving the last quaver in the L.H. under f2. It resulted in a totally arbitrary and still erroneous version, since the sextuplet should be written with semiquavers in this place.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors

b. 99

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

..

In GE1 (→GE2), g1 at the beginning bar is an erroneous semiquaver, which was corrected in GE3.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 105

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

..

The indications of triplets are our addition.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 112

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

c2 repeated in FE (→GE)

c2 tied in EE
..

Sustaining the c2 note was probably meant to rhythmically assimilate the 2nd half of this bar to its twin passage in the 1st half of bar 111. The fingering added in FES proves that the note at the beginning of the passage is to be repeated, whereas the version of EE is an arbitrary intervention of the reviser. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 122

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

e tied in FE (→GE) & EE2(→EE3)

e repeated in EE1
..

The missing tie of e may be an oversight of the engraver of EE1, corrected in EE2 (→EE3). However, it cannot be excluded that the omission of the tie was a decision of the reviser who considered the tie to be a mistake, noticing that Chopin could have written e as a semibreve, like in bar 116.
The dash visible in FEH before the 2nd e minim is perhaps related to the issue of sustaining it (as long as it conveys anything specific at all). Its authenticity and meaning are, however, unclear – one can interpret it as a strikethrough of the tie, which would mean a repetition of e, or a deletion of the tie and this minim, which would emphasise no repetition. In the face of these doubts, we do not include this mark. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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