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

b. 203

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

Slur in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

No slur in GE3

Slur suggested by the editors
..

The slur of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2) is clearly erroneous – it corresponds neither to the course of music or the piano gesture. Taking into account the slurs in the subsequent similar passages, in the main text we suggest a slur modelled after the slurs present in the sources in bars 205 and 209.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 204

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

No marks in sources

Staccato dots suggested by the editors
..

In the main text, we suggest adding staccato dots after analogous bar 206. Articulation markings (staccato, slurs) and accents are quite numerous in this fragment, yet inconsistent.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 204

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

..

In FE, there are no accidentals before the 4th and 8th semiquavers in the bar; at the same time, due to the use of an octave sign in the notation of the 1st beat of the bar, it is only the  before the 4th note that is to be considered necessary. In EE, this exact mark was added, whereas in GE, which rejected the octave sign, both necessary sharps were added.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies

b. 205

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

Slur in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

No slur in GE3

Slur suggested by the editors
..

The fact of leaving the first two semiquavers of the passage outside of the slur is almost certainly an inaccuracy of notation – cf. analogous bar 209. The missing slur in GE3 is probably a revision – this edition omitted all slurs in the R.H. in bars 203-210.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 206-208

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

No markings in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

     in GE3

[    ] suggested by the editors
..

The  mark in bar 205, which is not followed by a  mark in the majority of the sources, may be interpreted as a general col  or  simile indication (cf. e.g. the Etude in E major, op. 10, no. 11, bars 3-4). However, according to us, an inaccuracy, caused by a combination of oversights of both Chopin and the engraver of FE (e.g. the  mark in bar 205 would have fallen in FE at the end of the line, which favours inaccuracies), is more likely in this case. The additions suggested in the main text are modelled after the authentic indications in bars 203-204. A similar addition was introduced into GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , No pedal release mark