mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic post-publication changes and variants

b. 49

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

14 notes in FE (→GE,EE)

Possible 16-note variant in FEH
..

In FEH, the ending of this bar was provided with two diagonal crosses, with which Chopin would often mark places discussed during lessons, most probably problematic. Moreover, there is an ambiguous entry between a1 and d2; it can be interpreted as an inaccurately placed  referring to a1 (see the adjacent note) or two additional notes, constituting an extended, variant version of the final ornamental figure together with the remaining demisemiquavers.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH

b. 57

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

No ornament in FE (→GE,EE)

Arpeggio with grace note in FEH

Our variant suggestion
..

The arpeggio with a grace note, added in FEH, is a very characteristic ornament of Chopin – cf. e.g. the Concerto in F minor, op. 21, the 2nd mov., bar 75 or bar 17 and 85.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH

b. 58-59

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

Run to c3 in FE (→GE,EE)

Run to c4 in FEH
..

The notation of the variant written in FEH extending the roulade, so that it ends at the beginning of bar 59 with the c4 minim, does not define the number or the pitch of the notes in the extension of the roulade. We interpret it as a signal that one should use the model from its printed part. This kind of extensions of figurations can be found in a number of other Chopin's pieces – cf. e.g. the Waltz in A major, op. 42, bars 243-244. According to us, it practically guarantees the authenticity of this entry.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH

b. 59

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

Slur (tenuto?) in FE

No slur/tie in GE

Tie to c3 in EE

Arpeggio written into FES, possible reading

Repeated c3 in FEH, literal reading
..

The meaning of the curved line between the c3 notes is unclear, particularly in FE where it does not reach the quaver. Chopin may have thought of a tenuto-slur; however, a different misunderstanding of the Chopinesque notation also cannot be excluded. In the main text, we omit this curved line, since, according to us, the prescriptive interpretation of the mark as a tie is erroneous.

The passage filling 5 quavers was added in FES on the margin, next to the line containing bars 59-62, without indicating the place it should be inserted in the printed text. According to us, there are two such places – the 1st half of bar 59 (as an A major passage) or 5 last quavers in bar 61 (as an A minor passage). The latter seems to be more likely due to a similar nature of the passage written in this bar in FEH, hence we adopt the variant placed in bar 61 as the text of FES.

The literal interpretation of the variant of FEH excludes a simultaneous application of the interpretation of the passage of FES discussed above. Another interpretation of the entry in FEH – see the note in the further part of this bar.    

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH

b. 59

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

No extra notes in FE (→GE,EE)

3 notes in FED

4 notes in FEH, possible interpretation
..

Interpretation of the draft notation in FED is hypothetical to a significant extent – it is only 3 note heads that are written on the ledger lines, without stems or beams. Therefore, it is unknown in which rhythm they should be performed; their pitch is also unclear, since only the middle one is a distinctly written c3 note. We present the most likely interpretation, based on the following premises:

  • the draft nature of the entry suggests an obvious, easy-to-remember figure, e.g. repeated notes;
  • if the person entering these notes wanted them to be performed still before the end of the passage in the L.H., he or she could have easily written them in the corresponding place (earlier). In turn, it was difficult to fit them still before c3 on the 5th beat of the bar, but already after the minim in the L.H. It supports the placement suggested by us;
  • a variant implementing most likely a similar idea, written with quavers, is to be found in FEH.

According to us, such a placement of repeated c3 notes – directly before the triplet that ends the bar – is not excluded also by the notation of FEH, which we suggest as an alternative interpretation of that source. Naturally, none of the variants described in this note can be linked with the literal reading of the entry in FEH which occurs in the 1st half of the bar. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH