mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE revisions

Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 9

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

g repeated in FE (→GE)

g  tied in EE
..

There is no indication that the tie of EE could be authentic. It is also difficult to say what the motivation to add this tie was – b is not tied in analogous bar 4.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 16

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

No sign in FE (→GE)

Arpeggio sign in EE
..

The arpeggio added in EE is most probably an arbitrary addition, which is proved by the Chopinesque proofreading of FE:

  • removed arpeggio mark, initially printed – perhaps by mistake – before that chord; traces of that procedure are clearly visible in FE;
  • the 1 digit added before the d1-f1 third in the last phase of proofreading (it is absent in GE); in this context, it has only one meaning, i.e. to perform the third simultaneously with the 1st finger.

A tenth chord, also without arpeggio and with the minor third on the black keys performed simultaneously with the 1st finger, marked by Chopin with a curly bracket, is featured in the Prelude in A major, op. 28, no. 7.
There is a similar situation in analogous bar 57, see also the note below.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 16

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

1 in FE

No fingering in GE

1-2-4-5 in EE

1[ suggested by the editors
..

According to us, the 1st finger given in FE next to the d1 note indicates a simultaneous performance of the d1-f1 third with that finger. The same is suggested by the fingering added by Fontana in EE. No fingering in GE may indicate that Chopin added the digit in FE in the last phase of proofreading. There is a similar situation in analogous bar 57. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 16-17

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

Slur d2-g2 in FE (→GE)

Slur f2-g2 in EE

Slur d2-b1 suggested by the editors
..

It is unclear from the notation of FE (→GE) to which notes the endings of the slur are supposed to be linked. When interpreted literally, the slur leads from d2 in the middle voice to g2 in the soprano cantilena. It is not impossible, particularly since the division into voices is not strictly written down here – Chopin separated the top voice only in the 2nd half of bar 16, where it was necessary due to the varied rhythmic values. However, taking into consideration a possibility of an inaccurate reproduction of the notation of [A], which would often occur in similar situations, the slur could be reasonably assigned to the top voice, as it was done in EE, or to the middle third sequence b1-d2 – a1-c2 – g1-b1, which we suggest in the main text. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions

b. 17

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

No slur in FE (→GE1→GE2)

Slur in EE & GE3

Slur suggested by the editors
..

In the main text, we suggest a whole-bar slur in the L.H. after the authentic slurs encompassing figures of a similar shape in bar 20 and 23-25. The addition was introduced also in EE and GE3. A similar situation in analogous bar 58.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions