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. 303

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

Beams in FE (→GE1→GE2)

Beams in EE

Beams in GE3
..

In FE (→GE1→GE2) and EE, the notation of the first two semiquavers is probably erroneous. Although the traces of corrections in print point to a proofreading of this place, it seems, however, that it was a more serious mistake that was corrected, concerning beams, whereas the result may be a compromise between Chopin's intention and the engraver's convenience. Due to this reason, in the main text we repeat the undeniable notation of analogous bar 287. An identical revision was introduced in GE3. In this context, the reversed beams in EE, apparently without influence on the musical sense, may suggest a different arrangement of voices than the notation of FE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 304

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

a3 in FE (→GE,EE)

b3 as our alternative suggestion
..

The manner the 4th semiquaver was printed in FE raises doubts concerning its pitch; it may have been supposed to be a b3, like in the majority of the editions in analogous bar 288. Due to this reason, we consider that it is permissible to play b3 here if one chose b3 in bar 288.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 304

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

Slurs in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slur in GE3

Slurs suggested by the editors
..

According to us, the division of the slur reproduced in the sources is inaccurate, which is facilitated by such configuration. A possible interruption of legato would require shortening f3, written as a quaver, whereas the accented beginning of the slur (b2) would interfere with the long accent on the next note, g2. Therefore, in the main text we suggest modifying the slurs, eliminating the above defects, which is confirmed by the slur in analogous bar 288. The slur of GE3 must be arbitrary, although it is possible to justify it as having been modelled after the authentic slur in the previous bar. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 304

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

No sign in FE (→EE1→EE2, →GE1→GE2)

Arpeggio in GE3 & EE3

[] suggested by the editors
..

Having marked arpeggio in analogous bar 287, Chopin probably considered it to be obvious in this place, hence in the main text we suggest adding a wavy line. A similar conclusion was reached by the revisers of GE3 and EE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 305-306

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

Slurs in FE (→GE1→GE2)

Slurs in EE

Slurs in GE3

Slurs suggested by the editors
..

In the main text, we suggest adding a slur on the 1st beat of bar 305 on the basis of a comparison with the next bar. A longer slur in bar 306 is most probably an inaccuracy of EE. The whole-bar slurs in GE3 are probably modelled after the slur in bar 289.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions