mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in GE

b. 263-265

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

Slurs in FE (→EE)

Slurs in GE1 (→GE2)

Slurs in GE3

Slurs in FED

Slurs suggested by the editors
..

In the main text, we include the correction of the phrasing written by Chopin in FED, which we consider rather a proofreading of the erroneously interpreted slur of [A] than a change of the slurring's concept. At the same time, we interpret the fact of the slurs coinciding at the beginning of bar 264, which could also reproduce the notation of [A] inaccurately, as a continuous slur, like it was written in the first element of the progression (bars 239-240). Both in GE1 (→GE2) and GE3, the shorter slur over bar 263 seems to be an inaccuracy.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Inaccuracies in GE

b. 269-270

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

Short accent in FE (→EE)

Long accent in GE1 (→GE2)

Short  in GE3

Long accent suggested by the editors
..

Interpretation of the mark of FE (→EE) is unclear. When interpreted literally, it is a short accent under a tied note, which does not make sense on the piano. According to us, the course of music suggests a long accent on the syncopated g1-g2 octave as the most likely interpretation of this mark. Alternatively, one could also consider it a diminuendo mark, like it was performed in GE3. The presentation autograph of the Etude in A minor, op. 10 no. 2 abounds in marks of a not very clear meaning resembling short or long accents. Some of them almost certainly denote long accents, which substantiates such an interpretation. See also the adjacent note.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 287

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

 on 2nd quaver in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

 on 1st quaver in GE3
..

The  in FE (→EE) clearly applies to the 2nd quaver of the bar. In GE1 (→GE2), it was reproduced inaccurately, so in GE3, the indication was erroneously placed at the beginning of the bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 295

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

Slur from first note in FE (→EE)

Slur from 2nd note in GE1 (→GE2)

Longer slur in GE3

Longer slur suggested by the editors
..

We consider the slur of FE (→EE) to be inaccurate (shortened), most probably due to the notation of the topmost semiquavers on the upper stave, which interfered with a longer slur. In the main text, we suggest a longer slur, modelled after the authentic slur in bars 296 and 312. The slur in GE, starting later, which could be a revision or a mere inaccuracy, may, however, correspond to the notation of [A], since in similar contexts, it is sometimes very difficult to interpret slurs in Chopin's autographs. Therefore, one can consider the slur of GE3, although formally non-authentic, to be an acceptable variant.  

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 300-301

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

..

In GE1 (→GE2), all grace notes are non-slashed in these bars, which is one of the indications of evident distraction of the engraver of GE1 in bars 299-302 (other mistakes include an overlooked quaver flag in bar 300, an erroneous last semiquaver in the L.H. in bar 300, Terzverschreibung errors in the chords in bars 300 and 302 as well as, most probably, three overlooked  marks in bars 299-301). The grace notes were written correctly in GE3. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions