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. 77

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

c1 in FE, probable interpretation

c1 in FE (possible interpretation→GE,EE)
..

In FE, there is one mark before the 7th quaver, a  at the pitch of b, so it is unclear whether it concerns the bottom note of the third (resulting in a) or the top one (resulting in c1). In the orchestra, the chord features c1 in the viola part, both in MFrorch and FEorch. Two possibilities arise:

  1. FE do not contain a manifest error, it is only the  raising a to a (necessary) that was put a little bit too high; it leads to the version with c1 (the  from the 1st half of the bar is valid), in which the c1 note in violas is of a replaceable character. When reading FE, this version is a natural choice and this is how this place was interpreted in GE (however, adding a  in the viola part) and EE. It cannot be excluded that it was performed in such a way by Chopin's pupils during lessons, hence the absence of corrections in the pupils' copies may point to c1.
  2. According to Chopin's intention, the sharp in FE was meant to restore c1, whereas the alteration of a to a, obvious with regard to the sharps in the R.H., was overlooked. Undoubtedly, c1 in violas definitely supports this version, since the use of a chord element is highly likely in such orchestral accompaniment. The pedalling also seems to favour this possibility, since a pedal release (or change) before the 4th crotchet in the bar in the version with c1 would not be necessary (cf. the authentic pedalling in a similar harmonic context in the Fantaisie in F minor, op. 49, bar 18).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 78

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

..

There are no accidentals before the penultimate octave in FE (→GE). However, since in those editions (except for GE3) the first half of the bar is written using an octave sign, one can consider the sharps before the 1st octave in the bar to be valid. In GE3, the notation does not feature an octave sign (like in our transcriptions), hence the missing accidentals are a manifest error. In EE, sharps were added before this octave; they were added also in FED.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FED , Accidentals in different octaves , Errors in GE

b. 79

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

..

In FE, there are no accidentals before the 2nd octave, which is a patent oversight, corrected both in GE and EE. A sharp before a2 was added also in FES.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Errors in FE , Omission of current key accidentals , Annotations in FES , Last key signature sign

b. 79-87

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

..

In the main text, we add a cautionary  before c1 in bar 79 and 87.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 82

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

..

In GE1 (→GE2), there is an erroneous f instead of d as the 2nd quaver. The mistake was rectified in GE3.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions