mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

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. 294

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

Fingering written into FED, literal reading

Fingering in FED, interpretation

Fingering written into FEFo

Fingering written into FEH

No fingering in FE (→GE)

Fontana's fingering in EE
..

Fingering in FED presumably contains an error – the 1st finger on E would lead to a fingering fundamentally different from the one Chopin gave in previous bars. ​​​​​​​In the main text, we give the fingering in FEFo, consistent with other entries in the pupils' copies (taking into account only the '4' in FED), EE and, first of all. with the previous printed Chopinesque indications.  

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FED , Annotations in FEH , Annotations in FEFo

b. 295

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

Fingering written into FED

Fingering written into FEH

No fingering in FE (→GE)

Fontana's fingering in EE

Our suggestion based on FED & FEH
..

All fingerings are compliant in the fragments where their ranges overlap. In the main text, we suggest a compilation of the entry of FED and the part of the entry of FEH that complements it, which specify the hand position in the initial part of the bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FED , Annotations in FEH

b. 295

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

Slur from first note in FE (→EE)

Slur from 2nd note in GE1 (→GE2)

Longer slur in GE3

Longer slur suggested by the editors
..

We consider the slur of FE (→EE) to be inaccurate (shortened), most probably due to the notation of the topmost semiquavers on the upper stave, which interfered with a longer slur. In the main text, we suggest a longer slur, modelled after the authentic slur in bars 296 and 312. The slur in GE, starting later, which could be a revision or a mere inaccuracy, may, however, correspond to the notation of [A], since in similar contexts, it is sometimes very difficult to interpret slurs in Chopin's autographs. Therefore, one can consider the slur of GE3, although formally non-authentic, to be an acceptable variant.  

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 295

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

No slur in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slur in GE3

Slur suggested by the editors
..

In the main text, we add a slur after the authentic slur in an identical situation in bars 311-312. The addition was introduced also in GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 295

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

No slur in FE (→GE,EE1→EE2)

Slur in EE3

Slur suggested by the editors
..

A comparison with analogous bar 311 suggests that the absence of the slur is rather an inaccuracy of notation in this case. This conclusion is confirmed by the inconsistent and most probably incomplete slurs in the L.H. in this bar. Due to this reason, in the main text we suggest a two-bar slur modelled after bars 311-312. The slur was added also in EE3, yet without linking it to the next one, which may be considered an alternative attempt at reconstructing the notation of [A].

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions