mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 597-598

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

 in FE (→GE1→GE2)

 ​​​​​​​ in EE & (GE3)

[] suggested by the editors

[    ], our alternative suggestion
..

The missing  mark may be, but does not have to, a mistake of FE or an inaccuracy of [A]. However, since the previous appearances of this phrase offer two variants of a more detailed Chopinesque pedalling, we suggest respective additions; moreover, we adopt the indication modelled on bars 246-247, being a strict transposition of the discussed bars, in the main text. A ​​​​​​​ mark was added also in EE and GE3. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , No pedal release mark

b. 597-598

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in A

in FC & FE (→EE)

in GE
..

In accordance with the analysis of the Chopinesque  or  marks in this and analogous pairs of bars (see b. 6-7), in the main text we give the averaged, more or less one-bar hairpin of FC and FE (→EE). According to us, all hairpins, regardless of their actual length, are to be interpreted as long accents.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 599

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

No slur in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slur in GE3
..

The missing slur must be considered an inaccuracy in this place, even if it happened to Chopin in [A]. It is proved by slurs in subsequent bars, filled with typical, conventional (although not routine) figures. There is a similar situation in bars 607-608.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 601-603

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

Minims in FE

Different minims in GE

Dotted minims in EE
..

In FE (→EE), the minims are written in such a way that it is impossible to extend them with a dot. One can assume that the notation resulted from the minims having been added to an earlier notation of quavers only, perhaps still in [A]. Anyway, later proofreading of similar figures in exposition (cf. bars 257-263) and the notation of bars 605-606, 608, 610 and 613-618 prove that Chopin opted for a notation using one notehead, whereas the discussed bars remained uncorrected, probably due to inadvertence (it also applies to bars 607, 609 and 619-620). In the main text, we do not add a dot extending the minim in bar 602 due to the repeated bass note at the end of the bar (cf. bar 245 and 267-270). However, it is impossible to determine whether Chopin would have actually differentiated the notation of this bar with respect to the adjacent ones. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 603

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

Notation in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Notation in GE3
..

In the main text, we reproduce the way the notes of the triplet are aligned under the quintuplet after FE (→EE,GE1→GE2). It cannot be excluded that it indicates a performance intended by Chopin, where the 2nd and 3rd quavers of the bottom voice are played simultaneously with the 3rd and 5th semiquavers of the quintuplet. In turn, the notation of GE3 corresponds to a strict rhythmic division, which one also has to take into consideration as potentially authentic – a strict division is suggested by the notation used in a similar figure in the Fantasy in A Major, Op. 13, bar 159.

In practice, intermediate solutions are also possible, resulting from arpeggiating some dyads of the version of FE, which is technically easier for small hands: or . The latter marginally differs from strict rhythmic division.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions