mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 3

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

f1 tied in FE (→EE)

f1 repeated in GE
..

In FE, the f1 tie is printed slightly inaccurately, so that in GE1 (→GE2) it was misinterpreted as a slur for the bottom voice in the R.H. (in GE3, the mark was omitted).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE

b. 13

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

e1 in solo part in FE (→GE,EE)

e1 in orchestra part, suggested by the editors
..

According to us, Chopin wanted the e1 note in the 1st quaver in the top voice to be printed in a smaller font as belonging to the orchestral part only (to avoid ambiguities in the main text, we move it to the upper stave).
The thesis is supported by the following arguments: 

  • it is natural that the shape of the accompaniment is clearly outlined from the 1st figure; beginning the line of the top voice from e1 delays and hinders the development of the characteristic, wavy motif;
  • the version without e1, which we adopted in the main text, is present in analogous bar 54;
  • where the solo part begins or ends, the engravers would impart wrong values to certain notes on a number of occasions, e.g. in the 1st mov., bar 486 and 671. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 53

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

Rhythm in FE, literal reading

FE (probable interpretation→GE,EE)

Possible interpretation of FE

Combination of FEfort & FEorch
..

The literally reproduced notation of FE must be considered inaccurate if the rhythmic values in the 2nd half of the bar are correct (we omit the issue of the f1 crotchet on the 3rd beat of the bar, discussed separately, which is irrelevant in this place). Due to this reason, in the main text we move the b1 quaver before the final semiquaver of the piano reduction; both GE and EE changed the notation in the same way. On the other hand, one can imagine a situation in which it is the layout of the text that reflects the intended relationship between the solo part and the accompaniment, i.e. a simultaneous performance of the last note in the bar in all parts, and it is the rhythm in the upper voice that is incorrect. It leads to the version suggested as an alternative interpretation of the notation of FE.
Considering the solo part with the FEorch orchestral part, hence while performing the Concerto with orchestra, the aforementioned simultaneity relationship also occurs, since in the parts of string instruments – violins and cellos – the note ending the bar is a quaver: . It leads to the last of the suggested versions in which the correct elements of the notation of FE are a quaver in the solo part and alignment of the notes, whereas the dotted rhythm in the two bottom voices is incorrect. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

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

b. 72-73

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

Minims in FE (→GE,EE)

Dotted minims suggested by the editors
..

The absence of the dots increasing the duration of the bass notes most probably results from an inaccurately implemented proofreading of FE, for in this edition, there are visible traces of correcting in print the first notes in the bar from the following notation:  (with dots increasing the duration of notes). The unintentional character of the omission of the dots is proved by bar 75 in which a strictly analogous figure was printed already in the final layout and with a dotted minim. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Source & stylistic information

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors resulting from corrections , Authentic corrections of FE