mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in GE

b. 438-439

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

Slurs in FE (→GE1→GE2)

Slurs in EE

No slurs in GE3

Slur suggested by the editors
..

According to us, both beginning the slur only just from the 2nd beat of the bar and the gap at the transition between the bars look like accidental inaccuracies that are probably related to the layout. In FE, and most probably also in [A], the b-c1 ​​​​​​​semiquavers opening the passage are written on the bottom stave, which hampers the placement of the beginning of the slur (it was considered an inaccuracy already in EE). In turn, the division of the slur could have resulted from, e.g. the transition into a new line. In the main text, we give a slur modelled after the unequivocal slur in analogous bars 434-435. The absence of slurs in GE3 must be regarded as a mistake – it was probably an oversight or an unfinished revision.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE

b. 449-451

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

Slur from 2nd beat in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

No slur in GE3

Slur from 1st beat suggested by the editors
..

A comparison with analogous bar 453 most probably points to an inaccurate notation of the beginning of the slur in the sources. It is also the Chopinesque fingering, indicating those figures to be performed legato, that supports the idea of encompassing the first group of semiquavers with a slur.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE

b. 450-452

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

Incomplete slurs in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slur in bar 452 in GE3

Slurs suggested by the editors
..

Both the ending of the slur in bar 450 and the beginning of a new one in bar 452 fall on musically unjustified places. That gives rise to the suspicion that the notation could be inaccurate or even erroneous. A possible cause of that inaccuracy is indicated by the correlation between the slurs and the octave sign – the first slur ends where the octave sign begins in the sources, while the second slur begins just when the octave sign ends. A similar situation occurs in the autograph of the Etude in E​​​​​​​ major, op. 10 no. 11, bars 40-42; therefore, it may be the composer himself that is responsible for the inaccurate slurs. In the main text, we extend the slurs so that they encompass all semiquavers; moreover, in bar 452, we suggest beginning a new slur due to the beginning of a four-bar section. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE

b. 460

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

Wedge in FE (→EE)

No mark in GE
..

The missing staccato mark probably results from an oversight of the engraver of GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 474

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

 in FE (→EE)

 in GE1 (→GE2)

No sign in GE3
..

In the main text, we reproduce the ​​​​​​​ hairpin on the basis of FE (→EE). However, according to us, the mark applies to both hands, namely to the sequence of semiquavers beginning particular groups (there is a similar situation in subsequent bars). It was most probably the engraver of GE1 (→GE2) that reversed the mark, whereas in GE3 its absence can be explained by an oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE