mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 76

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

Staccato dot in FE (→EE) & GE3

No mark in GE1 (→GE2)
..

The staccato dot, overlooked in GE1 (→GE2), probably by inadvertence, was added in GE3.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 76-77

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

No slurs in FE (→GE1→GE2)

Slur in bar 76 in EE & GE3

Slurs suggested by the editors
..

The missing slurs in FE seem to be an inadvertence (of Chopin or of the engraver), hence in the main text we suggest adding slurs after analogous or similar bars, e.g. bars 74-75. In bar 76, a slur was added already in EE and GE3. A similar situation in bar 78.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

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

No slurs in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slurs in GE3

Slurs suggested by the editors
..

As in GE3, in the main text we add slurs after similar figures, e.g. in bars 81-83.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE 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