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. 434

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

Fingering written into FED

Fingering written into FEH

Fingering based on FED & FEH, suggested by the editors

Fingering written into FEFo

No fingering in FE (→GE)

Fontana's fingering in EE
..

The concerted fingering of FEH and EE most probably corresponds to the Chopinesque one, which is confirmed by the entry in FED. See also the note to bar 410. In comparison, the differing fingering of FEFo stands out, written actually rather by the pupil than by Chopin. It does not exclude its possible authenticity, yet in the main text we take into account the remaining entries – FED and the three digits of FEH that may have been written by Chopin.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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

b. 435-436

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

f1 in chord in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

No f1 in chord in GE3
..

The prolongation of f​​​​​​​ at the transition between the bars introduced in GE3 could have been aimed at avoiding repetition of that note, which makes this place similar to analogous bars 411-412. In turn, it is difficult to understand the motivation of the reviser of that edition at the time of removing the top f1 from the chord at the beginning of bar 436. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 435

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

Slur to d1 in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slur to f in GE3
..

The ending of the slur is unclear in the majority of the editions – the slur does not go beyond d1,  yet the last semiquaver, f, placed on the bottom stave, is actually under that note, so that one can assume that it is also encompassed with the slur. Such an interpretation was written in an unequivocal manner in GE3. In fact, both notations define the same performance, since d​​​​​​​1, being a quaver, cannot be separated from the next semiquaver. In this situation, it seems to be most natural to lead the slur to the end of the passage; this is the version we adopt to the main text.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 436

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

..

The traces of changes visible in FE prove that Chopin changed the enharmonic notation of the chord – c1 (with a cautionary ) replaced the original b​​​​​​​1. The change was most probably followed by subsequent ones – the cautionary naturals before the c1 semiquaver in bar 436 and c2 in bar 437 were removed. All those accidentals are actually superfluous after bars 434-435; however, they prove that the B major key, present from bar 324, triggered the composer to clearly mark the return to the E minor key, beginning in the discussed bars. 

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Cautionary accidentals , Enharmonic corrections , Last key signature sign

b. 436-437

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

Slurs in FE (literal reading→EE,GE1→GE2)

Probable interpretation of slurs in FE

Slurs in FE (contextual interpretation) & GE3
..

The moment of division of the slurs in FE is unclear – the slurs generally overlap over A, yet the shape of the slurs suggests rather the interpretation that we deemed to be likely. However, slurs in analogous places indicate a division of the slur before the penultimate semiquaver.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions