mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
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. 385

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

f2 in FE (→EE1)

f2 in GE, EE2 (→EE3) & FEH
..

A missing mark before the last semiquaver is most probably Chopin's oversight. The fact that the soloist recalls one of the main themes of this movement in a new, yet well-prepared C major key brings peace after the turbulent orchestral fragment. In this context, a deviation from the original, diatonic course of the phrase does not seem to be justified and sounds strange. The natural added in GE is almost certainly inauthentic, the mark added in EE2 (→EE3) even more so, but the mark added in FEH (probably by the pupil's hand) may be coming from Chopin.

category imprint: Interpretations within context

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Annotations in FEH

b. 385

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

Third c1-e1 in FE (→EE)

No third in GE
..

The missing c1-e1 third, ending the phrase of the orchestral part, is most probably a mistake of the engraver of GE. It could also indicate that it was added in the last proofreading of FE, yet the engraver's mistake is supported by the placement of the Solo indication in GE, i.e. only just over the 2nd beat of the bar, probably due to this third, which does not belong to the solo part. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 385

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

Slur from 2nd quaver in sources

Slur from 1st quaver suggested by the editors
..

Chopin precisely marked articulation of the accompaniment also in 5 similar places. In four of them, the slur clearly starts from the 1st quaver, whereas in the fifth case, its beginning is unclear. Since the articulation is undoubtedly supposed to be the same each time, we consider a later beginning of the slur in the discussed bar to be an inaccuracy and in the main text we adopt a slur running from the 1st quaver of the bar.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 385

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

 hairpin in FE (→GE,EE)

Long accent suggested by the editors
..

In this context, the  hairpin in FE (→GE,EE) means almost certainly a long accent – cf. an undoubted accent in a similar bar 393. Hence, it is very probable that the sign was inaccurately rendered (extended) by the engraver.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents

b. 385-386

composition: Op. 16, Rondo in E♭ major

Hairpins in FE (→EE)

Hairpins in GE

Long accents suggested by the editors
..

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE