mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 259-261

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

Slur in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slur in GE3

Slur suggested by the editors
..

The fact of leading the slur to the beginning of bar 261 is most probably an inaccuracy, which one can easily imagine, being aware of the Chopinesque panache when writing slurs, encountered in numerous autographs. There is no reason for the phrasing to obscure the natural division, marked by the progression's parts and underlined by the additional slurs in the bass in bars 261-264 and  marks. Moving the beginning of the slur to the 2nd quaver in bar 259 is an arbitrary revision of GE3, modelled after the inaccurately reproduced slur in bar 263 in GE1 (→GE2).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 261-262

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

2 slurs in FE

3 slurs in GE

2 slurs in EE

Slur suggested by the editors
..

The version of FE seems to be a result of a misunderstanding at the time of interpreting [A], in which possible corrections (combined slurs?) could have impeded figuring out Chopin's intention. The versions of GE and EE must be arbitrary revisions of this most probably inaccurate notation. The notation suggested in the main text, modelled after the previous element of the progression, is practically tantamount to the notation of FE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 275

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

  in FE, literal reading

 in GE

 in EE
..

When interpreted literally, the  mark in FE falls on a rest. This inaccuracy is most probably a result of a too literal reproduction of the notation of [A], in which Chopin could have not had enough space to write the mark between the bottom stave and the b semiquaver. In the main text, we assume, in accordance with GE and EE, that the mark concerns the beginning of the 2nd beat of the bar. The absence of  in GE is most probably an oversight.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE

b. 288

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

 on 3rd beat in FE

 on 2nd beat in GE

2  in EE
..

A comparison with analogous bars 287 and 303-304 points to an inaccurate placement of the  mark in FE (→EE). A corresponding correction was introduced already in GE. In turn, in EE, another  mark was added at the beginning of the bar, which is both an arbitrary and incomprehensible revision if we take into account the compliance with the harmonic course, confirmed in the analogous bars.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 291-294

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

..

In each of these bars, in FE, there is a  before the 1st semiquaver in the L.H.; however, in the further part of the passage, respective notes in other octaves are devoid of marks (except for the  before c in bar 293). These patent inaccuracies, repeated almost certainly after [A], were corrected in the remaining editions. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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