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

Pedalling

b. 572

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

No  ​​​​​​​in FE

​​​​​​​ in GE

​​​​​​​ in EE

[​​​​​​​] suggested by the editors
..

The  mark, overlooked in FE, was added in the remaining editions, although its absence does not have to be considered a mistake – cf. e.g. the Waltz in C​​​​​​​ Minor, Op. 64 No. 2, bar 15. In the main text, we suggest adding the mark in accordance with the possible phrasing, hence before the last quaver, which already begins the next musical thought.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , No pedal release mark

b. 577-585

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

​​​​​​​at end of bar in FE (→GE,EE)

​​​​​​​on 5th quaver suggested by the editors
..

Taking into account the explicit harmonic change on the 3rd beat of bar 577, it seems highly unlikely that Chopin would have envisaged the entire bar performed with one pedal. Therefore, the ​​​​​​​ mark is most probably placed inaccurately – the scheme from the previous bars was mechanically repeated. The suggestion given in the main text aims at correcting the inaccuracy in order to avoid an unjustified mix of harmonies. There is a similar situation in bar 585.  

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 586

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

​​​​​​​at end of bar in FE (→GE,EE)

​​​​​​​on 5th quaver suggested by the editors

Our alternative suggestion
..

Performing the entire bar on one pedal leads to an unjustified mix of harmonies at the end of the bar, hence in the main text we adjust the position of the ​​​​​​​ mark in order to avoid it (cf. bar 577 and 585). A possibility that the markings in this bar are to be considered a general con pedale indication, hence differently than in the adjacent bars, seems to be less likely; we suggest a possible implementation of that interpretation as an alternative solution. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

b. 593

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

​​​​​​​in FE (→GE1→GE2)

in EE

in GE3

 [] suggested by the editors
..

In this context, the missing  mark must be considered an inaccuracy – the fact of writing down a hold of the bass note with hand is most probably aimed at enabling clear pedalling, compliant with harmonic changes. The mark was added already in EE. It is present also in GE3, in the place we suggest in the main text. However, GE3 also arbitrarily moved the ​​​​​​​ mark.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , No pedal release mark

b. 597-598

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

 in FE (→GE1→GE2)

 ​​​​​​​ in EE & (GE3)

[] suggested by the editors

[    ], our alternative suggestion
..

The missing  mark may be, but does not have to, a mistake of FE or an inaccuracy of [A]. However, since the previous appearances of this phrase offer two variants of a more detailed Chopinesque pedalling, we suggest respective additions; moreover, we adopt the indication modelled on bars 246-247, being a strict transposition of the discussed bars, in the main text. A ​​​​​​​ mark was added also in EE and GE3. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , No pedal release mark