mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors repeated in GE

b. 39

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

..

In the last third on the 3rd crotchet in the bar in FE (→GE1→GE2), there is no  restoring e2. The correct notation is featured in EE and GE3; the mark was also added in FES. In melodic lines led in thirds, such mistakes would happen to Chopin quite often – cf. e.g. bars 88 and 90 in this movement of the Concerto as well as the Etude in G minor, op. 25, no. 6, bar 12 or the Mazurka in E major, op. 6, no. 3, bars 11, 13 and analog. A similar situation in bar 41.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Annotations in FES , Errors repeated in GE

b. 41

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

..

In FE (→GE1→GE2), there is no  restoring e2 in the last third on the 3rd crotchet in the bar.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors repeated in GE

b. 42

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

..

In FE (→GE1), the top note of the 10th semiquaver is an a2 (with a ); a2 is then restored with a sharp at the beginning of the 4th beat in the bar. The unequivocal mistake of the engraver is confirmed by corrections in three out of four pupils' copies – FES, FEJ and FEH. Respective revisions were introduced also in EE and subsequent GE – in GE2, the erroneous  was changed to a , whereas in EE and GE3, both marks were removed.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEJ , Errors repeated in GE , Annotations in FEH

b. 49

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

..

In FE (→GE1→GE2), there is no accidental before the 4th demisemiquaver before last. The missing  must be a mistake in this context, probably repeated after [A], since such inaccuracies in the notation of accidentals are typical of Chopin. The sharp was added in EE and in GE3; in the latter, another defect of Chopin's notation was removed – the unnecessarily repeated  before a2 in the 3rd group of semiquavers. The sharp in the discussed place could have been added in FEH – see the adjacent note. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Omission of current key accidentals , Last key signature sign , Errors repeated in GE

b. 72

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

No  in sources

 suggested by the editors
..

The absence of the  raising the top note of the mordent from a2 to a2 in the sources is almost certainly an inaccuracy in this context. Such imprecise notation of ornaments – grace notes, mordents, trills or turns – is a quite frequent phenomenon in Chopin's pieces, cf. e.g. the Nocturne in C minor, op. 27, no. 1, bar 75 or the Sonata in B minor, op. 35, the 2nd mov., bar 54.

category imprint: Interpretations within context

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE