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
Rhythm
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Rhythm

b. 438

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

Semiquavers in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Quavers in GE3
..

A comparison with all analogous passages (bars 410, 414 and 434) suggests that the notation of the majority of the sources is erroneous in this case – the engraver of FE could have relied on the pairs of notes in bar 440 and further. On the other hand, due to the 1st finger crossing under just after a1(2)​​​​​​​, the source notation is more justified in terms of piano performance in this bar than in the remaining ones. In spite of that, it seems to be highly unlikely that Chopin would have wanted this notation to be applied in the previous bars. In this situation, in the main text we suggest a notation compliant with analogous places, since differentiating the notation could unnecessarily suggest a different performance. Such a unification was introduced already in GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 442-443

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

Quavers in sources

Pairs of notes suggested by the editors
..

As in the case of bars 419-423, we unify the notation of these bars after the vast majority of analogous figures.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 442

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

..

In the sources, the c​​​​​​​2 note is wrongly assigned to the L.H. The mistake can be understood if we take into account the fact that on the last beat of bar 441 and the 1st quaver in bar 442 the parts of both hands are written together, on the top stave. In Chopin's autographs, division into voices may be unclear, e.g. due to middle notes written without stems. 

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 454

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

Octave in FE (→EE)

Only f2 in GE
..

Nothing proves the authenticity of the version of GE – cf. analogous bar 450. Actually, it cannot be excluded that the stem combining both notes of the octave in the R.H. was added in FE in the last phase of proofreading – it was most probably engraved independently from the stem of f​​​​​​​2, pointing upwards.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 470

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

Dotted minim in FE (→EE)

Minim in FE (possible reading→GE)
..

It is difficult to say whether FE includes a dot extending the B​​​​​​​ minim, since a possible mark is blurred. GE considered it an insignificant misprint, but EE assumed that it is a dot. According to us, the latter seems to be more likely, since it emphasises the continuous character of the bass note, since its notation in the next bar was enharmonically changed. After all, considering the authentic pedalling, this issue has no practical meaning.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Different values of chord components , Inaccuracies in FE