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. 45

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

 in Atut (literal reading→FE→GE,EE)

 in Atut, possible contextual interpretation

 suggested by the editors
..

The position of the  mark, in spite of the compliance of all sources, is questionable. It is most probably an example of the Chopinesque manner of writing indications within the range of their validity; however, it is unclear whether Chopin conceived  already at the beginning of the bar, like it was indicated in the orchestral parts (), or from the semiquaver tremolando. In a similar context in bars 99 and 111,  is written already at the beginning of the bar, which we consider to be a hint at the time of choosing the version to the main text. 

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Centrally placed marks

b. 46-47

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

Slurs in Atut, literal reading

Slurs in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slurs in GE3
..

The interpretation of the slurs of Atut by the engraver of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2) may be considered justified, since the notation of the manuscript is most probably inaccurate. In the main text, we give a different interpretation of Atut, based on the assumption that the similarly looking beginnings of the slurs in bars 45 and 47 convey the same message – slurs from the beginning of the semiquaver tremolando (however, cf. the note in bar 45). This solution was adopted in GE3.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions

b. 46

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

..

In the main text, we give the staccato dots after Atut. In FE (→EE), the marks were misplaced (they were placed under the 2nd and 3rd octaves). In GE, the whole was deemed to be a mistake and both dots were removed.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 48-49

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

Staccato dot in Atut

No marks in FE (→GE)

Dots & slur in EE

Dots suggested by the editors
..

The missing articulation markings in bar 48 in FE (→GE) must be an oversight – in Atut, there is only one staccato dot, which could have easily escaped the attention of the engraver. It is also unclear whether the absence of indications for the 2nd and 3rd octaves means that Chopin wanted to repeat the articulation scheme of bar 46 or whether he wanted staccato to be continued. The reviser of EE adopted the first interpretation; however, he repeated the erroneous marking of FE (→EE) from bar 46. The editors of mUltimate Chopin incline towards the second, less obvious possibility.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE

b. 48-49

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

..

EE added a slur combining the F-f and B1-B octaves, certainly by analogy with bars 46-47.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions