The history of this perennially popular work is immensely complicated and partially shrouded in mystery and uncertainty. Briefly, the version always played today, in respect of many important details of the solo part, also many tempo and other general markings, derives from Tchaikovsky's pupil Alexander Ziloti. Ziloti did give Tchaikovsky the opportunity to approve his emendations, but it seems that the composer merely gave them the most cursory glance before waving them airily through together with the instruction to Ziloti to tell the publisher to incorporate them all.

It is therefore possible to adopt the standpoint that “Tchaikovsky approved Ziloti's suggestions, therefore the version we know may be regarded as authentic”; on the other hand one could take the more sceptical view, that though in principle Tchaikovsky enjoyed the powerful effect of what he heard his student play, he cannot be said to have approved every one of Ziloti's many alterations. Some, such as the colossal puffing-up of the opening solo despite its (unaltered) very modest orchestration, undermining the entire structure of the opening section, are surely detrimental to the design of the piece. The problem is that we have no way of separating more than a few such sheep from the goats. A sceptic could perhaps start from the 1879 version, and incorporate only a minimum of readings from later versions, according to (there is no other criterion) personal preference. The result would indubitably be a tamer, less showy piece; but it would of course be closer to Tchaikovsky, and arguably have greater integrity as a whole.

The single notorious textual controversy concerns the third note in the flute at the beginning of the slow movement. As William Mann has written: “Common Sense tells us this is a slip of the pen; but respect for Tchaikovsky may lead us to view the discrepancy affectionately, and to think more than twice before making it conform.” See section 3 below.