Issues : Inaccuracies in FE
|
b. 593
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In this context, the missing category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , No pedal release mark |
|||||||||||
|
b. 595-596
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The overlapping slurs of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2) may be interpreted literally; however, according to us, it is highly likely that Chopin wanted to have consecutive slurs like it was interpreted in GE3. See also the note to bars 597-599. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 596-599
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
It is difficult to determine to what extent the slurs of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2) reproduce the notation of [A] – one can, e.g. imagine that the fact that the slurs coincide on the 1st octave in bar 598 could mean that Chopin wanted to merge them into one slur. What is more, it cannot be excluded that it was already the notation of [A] that contained certain inaccuracies, a vast number of which can be encountered in the preserved Chopinesque autographs, e.g. the missing slur in the ending of the phrase (bars 599-600) could have been related to the transition to a new line of text, which frequently resulted in overlooked endings of slurs. Due to this reason, in the main text we suggest one slur over the entire phrase after the analogous place in exposition (bars 245-249). The solution given in GE3 reveals a routine approach, where it was whole-bar slurs that were considered most natural. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 609
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Just like in a few other places (e.g. bar 250 and 577), one can ponder whether the long grace note is just a proof of the engraver's carelessness in this place. This is how it was assessed in GE; however, according to us, the situation in this bar is different (as well as in bar 607) – Chopin would frequently use grace notes in the form of small crotchets before longer values, e.g. minims (cf. e.g. the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, 1st mov., bar 208, as well as the Impromptu in G category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 620
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE, it is unclear whether the last note of the bottom voice should be encompassed with the slur or not. In the main text, we lead the slur to the penultimate note in the belief that Chopin used here portato articulation, which he marked with dots under a slur. In EE, the slur encompasses the entire group of 9 notes, which can be considered a variant, since such an interpretation is equally likely. The missing slur in GE and the con forza indication in FE, placed too low, which impeded drawing the slur, suggests that the slur was added in the last phase of proofreading of FE. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
in 
in 
Major, Op. 51, bar 104 or the Polonaise-Fantaisie, Op. 61, bar 209 and 212). Due to that reason, in the main text we leave the notation of 
