mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : 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. 64

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

 on 2nd beat in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

 on first beat in GE3
..

Placing the  mark only next to the 2nd crotchet in the bar is probably an example of the Chopinesque manner of placing indications within, and not at the beginning of, their scope of validity. Nowadays, such notation is not used, hence in the main text we move the mark to the beginning of the bar, accordingly to the musical sense.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Centrally placed marks

b. 72

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

..

In all sources, except for GE3, double sharps were unnecessarily repeated before the semiquaver f1-f2 octave.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals

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. 73

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

d2 repeated in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

d2 tied in GE3
..

According to us, the absence of the tie of the d2 grace note is a mistake – Chopin would often use such a breakdown of octaves downwards written in this way, cf. e.g. the Concerto in F minor, op. 21, the 1st mov., bars 149-150, the Ballade in G minor, op. 23, bars 258-259 or Allegro de Concert, op. 46, bars 217 and 219.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions