mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE revisions

b. 58

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

..

In GE and EE, a cautionary  was added before f3, which we adopt in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 58

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

No slurs in FE (→GE1→GE2)

2 slurs in EE

Slur in GE3

Slur suggested by the editors
..

Like in analogous bar 17, in the main text we suggest a whole-bar slur in the part of the L.H. Such a slur was added in GE3, whereas in EE, each half of the bar was embraced with a separate slur, perhaps due to the lack of space. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 63

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

No rests in FE

3 rests in GE1 (→GE2)

2 rests in EE

4 rests in GE3

Rest suggested by the editors
..

Chopin generally does not write rests in the solo part where the reduction of the orchestral part complements the rhythm – cf. e.g. bar 12, 22, 38 and analog. However, in this case the rhythmic values of both parts do not clearly combine themselves – the g2 quaver opening a new phrase in the solo piano seems to be inserted between the 3rd and 4th beats of the bar. Due to this reason, in the main text we clarify the rhythm by adding a rest. In EE and GE, two rests were added, filling the bar in the R.H. in the solo part, which may be considered justified. In turn, the additions of GE on the lower stave rather confuse the picture, particularly in GE1 (→GE2). 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

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

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

Staccato dot in FE

No mark in GE

Wedge in EE
..

Nothing indicates the authenticity of the versions of GE or EE – the first is most probably a result of an oversight, the second – a revision.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE