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. 28-29

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

Slur to A in FE (→GE,EE)

Slur to f in Atut, contextual interpretation
..

Bar 28 ends a page in Atut, which contributed to ambiguities in the slurring in the L.H. – the slur at the end of bar 28 clearly suggests continuation; however, it was not concluded in bar 29. Taking into account the fact that the 1st note in bar 29 is provided with a staccato mark, in the main text we draw the slur to that note. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 29

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

Wedge in Atut (→FE→EE)

Dot in GE
..

The change of the staccato mark from a wedge to a dot is a frequent revision (inaccuracy?) of GE in this Concerto and other works published by Kistner – cf. e.g. bar 92.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Wedges

b. 31-32

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

Slur in Atut

No slur in FE (→GE,EE)
..

The missing slur is most probably an oversight of the engraver of FE (→GE,EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 31

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

No sign in Atut (literal reading→FE→GE,EE)

 in Atut, contextual interpretation
..

In Atut, the R.H. part is written in this bar twice, most probably due to the non-inclusion of the bottom voice on the 3rd beat of the bar for the 1st time. In the corrected version, Chopin, however, overlooked the  mark, which was not included in the same FE (→GE,EE). According to us, it is highly unlikely that it was an omission – the composer forgot about the mark, since he was focused on those elements that required improvements, e.g. beams of the quavers in the melodic line.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections

b. 31-32

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

..

In Atut, the sharps are written only next to the top notes of the octaves, raising d to d. This patent inaccuracy was corrected already in FE (→GE,EE).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in A