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

Verbal indications

b. 353-354

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

cresc. - - in FE (→EE)

cresc. in GE
..

The missing dashes marking the range of cresc. are most probably an oversight of the engraver of GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 398

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

 under e2 in sources 

 under d2, our alternative suggestion
..

Providing a note that is neither a climax or a turning point or that is not rhythmically emphasised at all (e.g. a strong beat of the bar, syncopation) with a ​​​​​​​ mark is unheard of in Chopin's music. Therefore, one may assume a wrongly assigned indication (to a wrong note). A natural candidate for a note that Chopin probably wanted to underline is d​​​​​​​​​​​​​​2, which is a turning point of the melody and which is rhythmically separated by the breath that follows it. Due to this reason, we suggest moving  one note behind, which would correct a possible inaccuracy.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 466-467

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

Dashes in FE (→EE)

No dashes in GE
..

Omitted dashes determining the range of a given indication (e.g. a dynamic one) are a frequent inaccuracy of the first Chopinesque editions.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 477

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

No dashes in FE (→GE)

Dashes in EE

Dashes suggested by the editors
..

The fact that ​​​​​​​crescendo is not explicitly led to  may be explained by an oversight of the engraver or an inaccurate reproduction of [A] – handwritten indications are often much more expanded than the printed version, since it is impossible to reproduce them in such way (cf. e.g. the Mazurka in A major, op. 24 no. 3, bars 40-42). Therefore, in the main text we suggest adding dashes. Such a revision was introduced already in EE. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions

b. 501

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

​​​​​​​ in GE3

​​​​​​​suggested by the editors
..

The fact of assigning ​​​​​​​ to the 3rd beat must be a result of misunderstanding the notation of [A] ​​​​​​​– see bar 16. The version of GE3 is a result of a complex, arbitrary revision modifying dynamics – here and in bar 15 and 19 – on the basis of dynamics of the orchestral part, written down in FEorch (→GEorch). 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Centrally placed marks