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. 25-27

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

Wedges in bars 26-27 in Atut, literal reading

Dots in bars 26-27 in Atut, contextual interpretation

Wedges in bars 25-27 in FE (→GE,EE)

No marks, interpretation of Atut suggested by the editors
..

According to us, the wedges with which the accompanying chords in the L.H. were provided in FE (→GE,EE) are a result of misunderstanding the notation of Atut in bars 26-27, where the repeated chords are written in an abbreviated manner as minims with quaver tremolos. Willing to draw the attention to this abbreviation, Chopin marked the individual quavers with dashes, which he then tried to transform into dots, generally used for this purpose. This measure turned out ineffective, whereas the engraver (reviser?) not only included the wedges, in spite of renouncing the abbreviation, but he also propagated wedges in bar 25. However, since the wedges do not mark articulation, they are superfluous and misleading in a notation that does not make use of abbreviations. Taking into account the above considerations, we do not include them in the main text. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Corrections in A , Wedges , Inaccuracies in A

b. 29

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

Wedge in Atut (→FE→EE)

Dot in GE
..

The change of the staccato mark from a wedge to a dot is a frequent revision (inaccuracy?) of GE in this Concerto and other works published by Kistner – cf. e.g. bar 92.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Wedges

b. 31

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

No sign in Atut (literal reading→FE→GE,EE)

 in Atut, contextual interpretation
..

In Atut, the R.H. part is written in this bar twice, most probably due to the non-inclusion of the bottom voice on the 3rd beat of the bar for the 1st time. In the corrected version, Chopin, however, overlooked the  mark, which was not included in the same FE (→GE,EE). According to us, it is highly unlikely that it was an omission – the composer forgot about the mark, since he was focused on those elements that required improvements, e.g. beams of the quavers in the melodic line.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections

b. 39

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

Staccato dots in Atut & GE3

Slur in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)
..

The notation of Atut may be misleading – there is a delicate trace of ink caused by the quill's transfer between the staccato dots, which the engraver of FE considered a slur. The revision in GE3 was most probably performed on the basis of analogy with the following bars. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 46

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

..

In the main text, we give the staccato dots after Atut. In FE (→EE), the marks were misplaced (they were placed under the 2nd and 3rd octaves). In GE, the whole was deemed to be a mistake and both dots were removed.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions