Issues : Errors in GE

b. 284-286

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

Wedge in bar 284 in FE (→EE,GE1GE2)

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,GE1GE2). 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

b. 288

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

..

The middle part of the bar, from the 3rd to the 8th note, is written in FE (→EE) with the use of an octave sign. In GE1 (→GE2), the mark was overlooked, as a result of which a corresponding fragment seems to be written an octave lower. The mistake was rectified in GE3 by moving the notes to the right pitch, like it was written in all editions in analogous bar 304.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 288

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

..

In GE1 (→GE2), the 8th semiquaver is a d2. It is a result of two overlapped mistakes – the missing octave sign (see the previous note) and the Terzverschreibung error, which is confirmed by the comparison with analogous bars 287 and 303-304. The mistakes were corrected in GE3.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions

b. 289

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

Slur in FE (→EE,GE1GE2)

No slur in GE3

..

The oversight of the slur in GE3 is most probably an accident. It is difficult to accept an intentional deletion of a whole-bar slur (after the next bar, in which the slur was overlooked in GE1) if in analogous bars 305-306 such whole-bar slurs were introduced contrary to the notation of GE1.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 290

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

Slur in FE (→EE)

No slur in GE

Our alternative suggestion

..

The slur, starting later than in the previous bar, seems to be an inaccuracy of notation only. However, the different slurring of analogous bars 304-306 prompts us to be prudent in such evaluations. In GE, the slur was completely omitted, perhaps as a result of doubts concerning its range.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE