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. 283-284

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

No markings in FE (→GE)

 in bar 284 in EE

Pedalling suggested by the editors
..

In the main text, we add pedalling markings on the basis of comparison with analogous bars 299-300. In bar 284, the addition was performed already in EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions

b. 283

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

Fingering written into FED

Fingering written into FEH

No teaching fingering
..

The fingering, written probably by the hand of the pupil in FEH, was changed in this bar – the a-g transition was initially marked with the 2 and 3 digits. The correction could have been suggested by Chopin, which is indicated by further compliance with the entry in FED. In the main text, we include the indication of the latter, whose authenticity is unquestionable and which specifies the unobvious use of the 1st finger on a black key, crucial for a comfortable grip of the chord in the next bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Annotations in FEH

b. 284-286

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

3  in FE (→EE)

 in bar 285 in GE1 (→GE2)

3  in GE3
..

In GE1 (→GE2), there is only one  in bar 285 instead of three subsequent  marks. There are no doubts that it is a mistake; however, it remains a mystery how such an accumulation of mistakes occurred (moreover, three out of four  in analogous bars 299-302 were overlooked). Perhaps some of them, e.g. those in bars 299-302, were added only just in the last proofreading of FE. GE3 added  in all five bars devoid of the marks.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 284

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

No sign in sources

[] suggested by the editors
..

A comparison with the adjacent bars suggests that the  hairpin was overlooked here by mistake. The reason could have been, e.g. the graphic layout, in which the final semiquavers in the L.H. are written on the upper stave, as a result of which there was simply not enough space to insert a hairpin. In turn, it seems to be unlikely that the reason could have been the presence of cresc., since Chopin considered  marks and cresc. indications independently – cf. e.g. the next bar. Therefore, in the main text, we suggest adding a  hairpin after the adjacent bars (averaging its range).  

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 284-286

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

Wedge in bar 284 in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

No mark in GE3

Wedges in bars 284-286 suggested by the editors
..

The absence of the wedge in GE3, purposeful or accidental, indicates the need to authenticate the single mark in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2). Therefore, in the main text, we suggest wedges also in the next two bars, materialising the model's idea Chopin most probably had at the time of inserting the mark in bar 284. An identical piano grip and repeated  marks leave no doubt as to the performance manner of those broken chords, i.e. each time the same.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in GE