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

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 367-368

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

No marks in sources

Staccato dots suggested by the editors
..

In the main text, we add staccato dots after analogous motifs in bars 363-364 and 39-44. 

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 372

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

Long & short accent in FE

Short accents in GE & EE
..

The difference in the length of the accents in FE seems to be accidental – in bar 375, accents in a similar motif are all the same. Due to this reason, in the main text we give accents of the same length (short), just like in GE and EE. 

category imprint:

issues: Long accents

b. 391

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

Staccato dot in FE (→EE)

Wedge in GE
..

It seems to be impossible to decide whether Chopin meant here a staccato dot (like in the next bars) or a wedge (like in the previous ones). The editors would often confuse these marks; it is also difficult to differentiate between them in the Chopinesque autographs. In the main text we give a dot, since FE is the only edition based directly on [A].

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Wedges

b. 391

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

..

In EE2 (→EE3), there is no wedge next to the 1st quaver of the bar. It must be an accidental oversight, a side effect of the arbitrary change of pitch of that note – see the adjacent note.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE

b. 393

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

 in FE (→EE)

No sign in GE
..

The missing  in GE could be explained by the possibility that the mark was added in the last proofreading of FE; however, the additional absence of the slur in the L.H. in this bar makes a possible inadvertence of the engraver of GE more likely; the engraver overlooked a certain stage of work here – the elements between the staves, unrelated to the particular notes. See also bar 394.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE