mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 572

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

No slur in FE (→GE,EE)

Slur suggested by the editors
..

In the main text, we suggest adding a slur combining the upbeat with the beginning of the next bar – the musical connection of that quaver with the next phrase is unquestionable, yet the a tempo indication appearing only just in bar 573 may distort the correct phrasing if interpreted literally. Both the missing slur and placement of a tempo may actually be a random inaccuracy related to the transition to a new page in FE. 

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 577

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

Small crotchet in FE

Acciaccatura in GE & EE
..

The grace note in the form of a small crotchet is most probably a mistake of FE – cf. bar 250. A similar conclusion was reached already by the revisers of GE and EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 577-585

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

​​​​​​​at end of bar in FE (→GE,EE)

​​​​​​​on 5th quaver suggested by the editors
..

Taking into account the explicit harmonic change on the 3rd beat of bar 577, it seems highly unlikely that Chopin would have envisaged the entire bar performed with one pedal. Therefore, the ​​​​​​​ mark is most probably placed inaccurately – the scheme from the previous bars was mechanically repeated. The suggestion given in the main text aims at correcting the inaccuracy in order to avoid an unjustified mix of harmonies. There is a similar situation in bar 585.  

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 585

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

R.H. accent in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

No mark in GE3

L.H. long accent suggested by the editors
..

In the sources, placing an accent under the tied note of the R.H., which deprives the mark of its actual meaning, suggests an inaccuracy in reproducing the Stichvorlage. In the main text, we repeat the notation of the analogous bar of exposition (bar 235) – a long accent over the L.H. part. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 593

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

Minim in FE (→GE)

Dotted minim in EE

Quaver & minim suggested by the editors
..

In the main text, we specify the Chopinesque notation of the sustained d bass note. Chopin used this kind of simplified notation of sustained notes a few times (e.g. in the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, 2nd mov., b​​​​​​​ar 15), yet in this case a strict notation does not excessively complicate the notation (a similar notation is to be found, e.g. in the Fantaisie in F Minor, Op. 49, bar 43 and subsequent). The notation introduced in EE, although still vague, may be, however, considered to be more precise than the original one, particularly if we take into account the fact that originally a dot did not precisely determine the rhythmic value a note should be prolonged with. 

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE