mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

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

Pitch

b. 119

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

Solo from 3rd quaver in FE (→GE,EE)

Solo from 4th quaver in FEH (possible interpretation)
..

FEH contains an ambiguous entry in the 2nd half of the bar – two almost vertical lines that can be interpreted as an emphasis on the entry of the solo part or, on the contrary, as a deletion of the 3rd quaver of the bar beginning the soloist part. It seems that the latter is supported by the diagonal cross over the 4th quaver, perhaps written as an additional marking of a new, shifted entry of the soloist. However, a possible variant gives rise to a number of doubts:

  • such marks do not allow for a credible handwriting analysis;
  • the meaning of the entries is uncertain – neither the lines, nor the cross, otherwise a very typical mark of Chopin-teacher, give rise to an unambiguous interpretation;
  • the person using FEH played the entire version for one piano, which is proven by entries in the Tutti (cf. e.g. bars 305-307). It is possible that the entry, even if it defines an authentic variant, was supposed, according to Chopin, to concern the version for one piano only.

Therefore, the given version must be approached with great caution as a possible variant of uncertain authenticity.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

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

b. 126-127

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

FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

GE2a

GE3
..

It is difficult to determine how come that the correct text of GE2 (excluding the mistake in the 1st quaver in bar 127, discussed separately) was changed to the impoverished version of GE2a. Perhaps a worn-out fragment of a plate was re-engraved in order to remove the increasingly pronounced printing defects. Traces of such procedures are to be found, e.g. in the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21 – see the characterization of its GE1a. It also happened that various mistakes were committed in a newly engraved text, most frequently, precisely, oversights. However, in the discussed place printing defects are visible rather on the available copies of GE2a; hence after possible corrections (cf. e.g. the copy from the National Library in Warsaw).
GE3 introduced here a version based on GEorch, which differs in certain details from the authentic version of FE (→GE1→GE2). Could it be that the reviser of GE3 corrected the erroneous text of GE2a not having access to the authentic version printed (with only one mistake) in GE1 and GE2? It seems to be more likely than possible direct changes in the version of GE2, in which it was enough to correct the erroneous top note of the 1st quaver in bar 127.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors resulting from corrections , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 127

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

f2 in FE (→EE) & GE3

g2 in GE1 (→GE2)
..

The compliant version of FE and all sources of the orchestral part – MFrorch and FEorch (→GEorch) – proves the mistake of GE1 (→GE2), corrected only just in GE3. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 132-136

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

..

In FE, there is no ​​​​​​​ before the 9th semiquaver in bars 132 and 136. The patent inaccuracy was corrected both in GE and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 139

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

g in FE (→EE)

g in GE
..

The correctness of the version of FE (→EE) is confirmed by the sources of the orchestral part – MFrorch and FEorch, whereby the latter contains a cautionary  before this note in cellos, after the g featured four bars earlier. The pupil's copies also do not indicate a possible oversight of a ​​​​​​​ before the discussed note – Chopin did not introduce changes in any of them. Therefore, the natural added in GE (also in cellos) is most probably an arbitrary editorial revision of that edition.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions