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. 520

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

Fingering written into FEH

No teaching fingering
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FEH

b. 520

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

..

In FED, there is a diagonal line written in pencil under the entire passage (from d​​​​​​​1 to a2). Chopin would use more or less diagonal lines to, e.g. mark synchronisation of ornaments (cf. bar 403); however, in this case it does not indicate a specific note both in the left and right hand. Moreover, it does not seem to be a mark emphasising the meaning of the rest, like it is in bar . Therefore, it might have been a mark accompanying a verbal indication concerning smooth performance of the passage. 

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED

b. 521

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

Short accent in FE (→GE,EE)

Long accent suggested by the editors
..

A syncopation in a cantilena phrase is a typical place for a long accent, which is confirmed by the analogous bar in the exposition (bar 166). Therefore, we consider the accent in the sources to have been inaccurately reproduced.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents

b. 522-539

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

..

category imprint:

b. 523

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

5 quavers in FE (→EE)

4 semiquavers in GE
..

Like in bar 168, it is not entirely clear whether the change of the manner of writing down the grupetto was an arbitrary decision of GE or the original version, corrected then in FE. In the discussed bar, FE bears visible traces of changes performed in print (they are absent in bar 168); however, it seems that they concerned reduction of the number of small notes between the d2 crotchet and the f2 quaver from five to four and not their beam. Therefore, the accuracy of the above observations would support the first possibility, i.e. an arbitrary change introduced in GE. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions