mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic post-publication changes and variants

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. 221

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

d1-f​​​​​​​1 tied in FE (→GE,EE)

d1-f​​​​​​​1 repeated in FEH

Our variant suggestion
..

In FEH, the ties of the d1-f1 third were crossed out. The authenticity of this variant seems to be highly likely if we take into account a number of other, almost certainly Chopinesque, variants entered into that copy. The manner the marks were crossed out resembles the Chopinesque one – cf. e.g. crossings-out in the pupil's copy of the Nocturne in D​​​​​​​ Major, Op. 27 No. 2, bar 45. In the main text, we signalise the possibility of omitting the ties with brackets.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

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

b. 223-224

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

Tied g​​​​​​​1 in FE (→GE,EE)

No g​​​​​​​1 in bar 224 in FEH
..

The crossing-out of the tied g​​​​​​​1 note at the beginning of the bar visible in FEH may indicate a variant – cf. analogous bar 228. It was probably meant to simplify the performance, since omission of the tie, sonically practically unnoticeable, enables the f1-g1 second to be performed with the 1st finger, which, in turn, allows for an easier fingering of the upper voice. However, it cannot be excluded that the crossing-out was only supposed to suggestively signalise that this note should not be played simultaneously with the e1-e2 octave, which is indicated by a few similar crossings-out – see bars 294-295 as well as 334-335, 370-371, 377-378. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 256-257

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

FE (→GE,EE)

FEH, literal reading

FEH, contextual interpretation
..

The octave sign added in FEH most probably defines an authentic variant. According to us, it is much more likely that it was meant to move the entire figure of both hands by an octave, and not only of the R.H. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

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