mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

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. 357-358

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

Slurs in FE

Slurs in GE1 (→GE2) & EE

Slurs in GE3

Slurs suggested by the editors
..

The slurs of FE are clearly inaccurate and incomplete. Both the beginning of a new slur from the a1-a2 octave and the absence of a slur in the 1st half of bar 358 are contrary to the structure of motifs, emphasised by the beaming and instrumentation. Slurs over the ending of the motif in bar 358 were added already in GE and EE, yet the division of the slur in bar 357 was moved only in GE3. In the main text we correct the range of slurs in accordance with the motifs' shape. See also bars 359-360. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

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. 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. 405-407

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

..

In bar 405 and 407, there are no naturals lowering f to f in FE. These patent inaccuracies were corrected both in GE and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 408-409

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

Slur in FE (→GE1→GE2)

Slurs in EE

Dots & slurs in GE3

Slurs suggested by the editors
..

The slur of FE (→GE1→GE2) must be inaccurate, yet it proves, together with other slurs in the L.H. in analogous bars, that Chopin did not intend to omit the slurs in the part of the L.H. Due to this reason, in the main text, we suggest slurs in both bars, modelled after the slur in the R.H. in bar 409. EE added only the slur in bar 409, whereas GE3 introduced inauthentic articulation, i.e. staccato dots and slurs, like in the R.H. part. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions