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. 385

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

Third c1-e1 in FE (→EE)

No third in GE
..

The missing c1-e1 third, ending the phrase of the orchestral part, is most probably a mistake of the engraver of GE. It could also indicate that it was added in the last proofreading of FE, yet the engraver's mistake is supported by the placement of the Solo indication in GE, i.e. only just over the 2nd beat of the bar, probably due to this third, which does not belong to the solo part. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 385

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

Slur from 2nd quaver in sources

Slur from 1st quaver suggested by the editors
..

Chopin precisely marked articulation of the accompaniment also in 5 similar places. In four of them, the slur clearly starts from the 1st quaver, whereas in the fifth case, its beginning is unclear. Since the articulation is undoubtedly supposed to be the same each time, we consider a later beginning of the slur in the discussed bar to be an inaccuracy and in the main text we adopt a slur running from the 1st quaver of the bar.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 390

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

No  in FE

 before 5th quaver in GE

 after 6th quaver in EE

 suggested by the editors
..

In FE, the missing  after the  mark in bar 389 is most probably an oversight (of Chopin or of the engraver), since there are no reasons for the notation to deviate from the remaining, similar fragments. The mark was added already in GE and EE. See also bars 394-395.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , No pedal release mark

b. 390

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

 in FE

 in GE & EE

 with  suggested by the editors
..

In the sources, there is no  under the turn mark; however, the 'post' visible within the mark of FE –  – was used to mark that the bottom note of the turn is to be raised (see, e.g. the Nocturne in B major, op. 62 no. 1, bar 21, in which Chopin marked a turn with the  mark in one of the autographs, whereas in another one, he wrote it with small notes, the bottom of which is raised). It is also noteworthy that the mark in FE is reversed, which may suggest an unnatural order of the interchanged notes in this context (first the bottom, then the top one). Such a notation, probably accidental, was not repeated both in GE and EE. In the main text, we give the generally adopted notation corresponding to the most likely performance of the turn.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 390-391

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

..

In GE1 (→GE2), bar 390 is the last one in the line of text, which probably caused an inaccuracy in the notation of the slur running from f3 – its ending was overlooked in bar 391. It is also possible that the missing ending of the slur is a side effect of the revision of the pitch of the 1st quaver in bar 391. In GE3, the slur was completely omitted.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in GE