mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE revisions

b. 87

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

Fingering in FE (literal reading→GE)

Fingering in FE, contextual interpretation

Fingering in EE
..

When interpreted literally, the fingering in FE raises doubts due to its problematic purpose – the 5th finger on D is most obvious in this context and it is difficult to imagine why Chopin would have wanted to indicate its use right here. According to us, the engraver assigned the digit to a wrong note, hence in the main text we place it under d, where such information is useful.
In EE, Fontana, as well as in a few other places (e.g. in bar 79), copied the change of fingers to d, which, in the light of the authentic articulation, staccato on D, is a totally unjustified complication. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE

b. 91

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

Quintuplet in FE (probable reading→GE,EE)

Triplet in FE, possible interpretation
..

The rhythmic division of the 4th beat of the bar is not certain in FE – the digit '5' is put over the fourth semiquaver (in the group of five). The correct digit was either inaccurately placed (the '5' describing the quintuplet should be over the 3rd note) or the engraver inserted the '5' by mistake instead of a '3' marking the last three semiquavers as a triplet. None of the pupils' copies includes hints on rhythm. In the main text, we adopt the first possibility, based on an assumption that the notation of FE, although inaccurate, does not contain a mistake. The version with quintuplet, written unambiguously, is present in GE and EE. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 91

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

..

In FE, there are no accidentals before the 4th semiquaver in the R.H. and the bottom note of the 3rd quaver in the L.H. Oversights of the symbols of the current key, typical of Chopin, were corrected both in GE and EE. A sharp in the L.H. was added also in FEH and FES. In the latter, cautionary double sharps before f2 on the 2nd and 4th beats of the bar were also added.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Annotations in FES , Last key signature sign , Annotations in FEH

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

b. 98

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

Fingering written into FEH

Fingering written into FES

No teaching fingering in FE (→GE)

Fingering in EE
..

In the main text, we give the more accurately marked fingering of FEH. Its authenticity is confirmed by the digits written in FES, indicating almost certainly the same fingering. The fingering added by Fontana in EE is also compliant with the entries from the pupils' copies in this case.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEH