mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic corrections of FE

b. 416-423

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

No L.H. slurs in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

L.H. slurs in GE3
..

In GE3, slurs in the L.H. were added in this fragment, most probably under the influence of analogous bars 440-444. It could be considered justified, if not for the fact that the range of the slurs was adjusted to the slurs in the R.H. not in an authentic version, but in an arbitrarily changed one – cf. a corresponding note to bars 417-424. Moreover, Chopin probably consciously rejected slurs in the L.H. in the discussed bars. It is proved by the traces of removal of the slur in the L.H. in bar 418 visible in FE; it was probably in [A] ​​​​​​​that the slurs in this section were so fragmentary that the composer preferred removing the inaccurate and misleading slurs rather than correcting them, given that the correct phrasing is indicated by the slurs in the R.H.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 424-425

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

Slur in bar 424 in sources

Slur to bar 425 suggested by the editors
..

According to us, the slur of FE (→GE,EE) is inaccurate, which is proved by the slur in analogous bars 428-429 (most probably proofread by Chopin) as well as by the slurs in the L.H. in both places. The absence of slurs in further part of bar 425 is probably intentional – in analogous bar 429, one can see traces of removal of the slur over the 2nd and 3rd groups of semiquavers in FE.  

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 426-427

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

Slur to bar 427 in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slur in bar 426 in GE3
..

A shorter slur is an inaccuracy of GE3. Chopin proofread this slur in FE – the traces of corrections show that the original slur would begin on the 3rd beat of bar 426 – and did not change the moment of its ending.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 437

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

..

The traces visible in FE prove that the last semiquaver was proofread, since d​​​​​​​1 was changed to c1. That version was probably an earlier edition of that place or perhaps also of earlier analogous bars 412, 413 and 436, changed still at the stage of manuscripts. In that case, it would be an overlooked proofreading of an analogous place.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 441

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

..

In FE, there is no  raising c2 to c2. Visible traces of corrections in print reveal that it was a​​​​​​​1 that was the original version; it was moved to the correct pitch in the proofreading, yet without . This patent oversight (of the engraver or of Chopin at the time of marking the correction) was revised both in GE and EE.

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

issues: EE revisions , Errors resulting from corrections , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE