mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in GE

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

b. 85

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

4+3 in FE (→EE) & GE3

5+2 in GE1 (→GE2)

Completed FE version
..

Nothing supports the authenticity of the rhythm in GE1 (→GE2). The very likely mistake was corrected in GE3 by restoring the version of FE (→EE). (NB. the traces visible in FE suggest that the mistake could have been committed already in FE and corrected therein in the last phase of proofreading).
In the main text, we clarify the rhythm by adding a triplet marking. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 90

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

 in FE (→EE)

No sign in GE
..

The missing  hairpin is probably an oversight of the engraver of GE. There is also a possibility that Chopin added the marking in the last phase of proofreading of FE (→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 93

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

c2 in chord in FE (→EE) & GE3

b1 in GE1 (→GE2)
..

The version of GE1 (→GE2) is most probably erroneous – even if we assumed that Chopin took part in the preparations of GE1, the use of b1 in this context would have required a cautionary . In GE3, it was considered a mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 94

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

FE (literal reading) & EE3

GE1 (→GE2), contextual interpretation (possible interpretation of FE)

EE1 (→EE2) – probable interpretation of FE

GE3, contextual interpretation
..

The rhythmic notation of the 1st half of the bar in FE is unclear – according to the written rhythmic values, the group of 20 demisemiquavers begins after the e4 semiquaver, yet according to the arrangement of notes – after the quaver. In GE1 (→GE2), the arrangement of notes was changed; however, a mistake in the beam arrangement was committed, as a result of which both e4 notes are semiquavers; after correcting the mistake, the version of GE1 (→GE2) constitutes a possible interpretation of the notation of FE. The version of EE1 (→EE2) suggests another interpretation, where the first e4 is a quaver. According to us, it is more likely that it is the second version that corresponds to Chopin's intention, hence we give it in the main text. In GE3, another mistake was added to the mistake of the previous GE – a wrong arrangement of the quavers in the L.H. with respect to the R.H. EE3 reinstated the unclear notation of FE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors