mUltimate Chopin

Issues : Terzverschreibung error

b. 543

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

No upper voice in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Upper voice in GE3

The missing marking of the top voice is obviously an inaccuracy of notation. In FE, the slur, placed high above that figure, suggests that stems and beam were planned here, but were overlooked by the engraver, perhaps due to the need to correct an erroneous note (one can see traces of removal of d³ at the beginning of the 3rd beat of the bar). The top voice was completed in GE3.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in FE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

Show

in transcript in source compare sources

b. 581

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

Sixth in FE (→EE1→EE2)

Octave in GE & EE3

The version of GE must be erroneous, which is supported by the logic of the course of the melodic line, confirmed by the version of analogous bar 69 and 230. Locally, the mistake is not manifest, so the reviser of EE3, having apparently a great confidence in GE, introduced that version instead of the correct text.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error

Show

in transcript in source compare sources

b. 587

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

f in FE (→GE,EE)

a, our alternative suggestion

In the main text, we keep the version of FE (→GE,EE), despite the fact that a comparison with analogous bar 75 and 237 suggests a Terzverschreibung mistake on the 3rd quaver of the bar – in the printed version, the doubled leading note contributes to latent parallel f-f¹ ⇒ g-g¹ octaves at the moment of resolution. A Terzverschreibung mistake belongs to the most frequently committed pitch errors – cf. e.g. bar 290 and 308 of this movement of the Concerto or bar 73 and 108 of the second movement).