mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE revisions

b. 51

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

No slurs in FE (→GE1→GE2)

3-note slurs in EE

4-note slurs in GE3
..

In this context, the missing slurs must be considered an inaccuracy; therefore, in the main text we add them after the previous bar and analogous bar 100. Such additions were introduced already in GE3. In turn, the slurs added in EE, unjustified by the accompaniment structure, cannot be authentic.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 53

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

 in FE

 in GE

in EE
..

The differences in the notation of the f1 crotchet at the beginning of the 2nd half of the bar is probably a result of a mistake of the engraver of FE and revisions of the remaining editors. The dotted crotchet in the versions of FE and GE – regardless of the notation manner – implies a momentaneous split of the most bottom of the three upper voices, which, until that moment, was consistently led from the beginning of that phrase in bar 52. Due to this reason, we consider the crotchet in EE to be the most probably correct, where the natural sequence of the three upper voices, corresponding to Violin I, Violin II and Viola, is maintained.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 53

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

Rhythm in FE, literal reading

FE (probable interpretation→GE,EE)

Possible interpretation of FE

Combination of FEfort & FEorch
..

The literally reproduced notation of FE must be considered inaccurate if the rhythmic values in the 2nd half of the bar are correct (we omit the issue of the f1 crotchet on the 3rd beat of the bar, discussed separately, which is irrelevant in this place). Due to this reason, in the main text we move the b1 quaver before the final semiquaver of the piano reduction; both GE and EE changed the notation in the same way. On the other hand, one can imagine a situation in which it is the layout of the text that reflects the intended relationship between the solo part and the accompaniment, i.e. a simultaneous performance of the last note in the bar in all parts, and it is the rhythm in the upper voice that is incorrect. It leads to the version suggested as an alternative interpretation of the notation of FE.
Considering the solo part with the FEorch orchestral part, hence while performing the Concerto with orchestra, the aforementioned simultaneity relationship also occurs, since in the parts of string instruments – violins and cellos – the note ending the bar is a quaver: . It leads to the last of the suggested versions in which the correct elements of the notation of FE are a quaver in the solo part and alignment of the notes, whereas the dotted rhythm in the two bottom voices is incorrect. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 57

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

1 in FE

No fingering in GE

1-2-4-5 in EE

1[ suggested by the editors
..

The 1st finger added next to the d1 note, most probably in the last phase of proofreading of FE, indicates a simultaneous performance of the d1-f1 third with this finger.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE

b. 57

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

No sign in FE (→GE)

Arpeggio sign in EE
..

Like in analogous bar 16, the arpeggio in EE is most probably an arbitrary addition of the reviser.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions