mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Corrections in A

b. 20

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

 in Atut

 in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

 in GE3

 suggested by the editors
..

According to us, Chopin changed the initially written  to  in Atut, probably with an intention of leaving place for a subsequent crescendo. However, the correction turned out to be incomprehensible for the engraver of FE (→GE,EE), who preserved . Like in bar 16, the mark in Atut is written between the chords, which, according to us, does not mean that it should be applied from the 3rd beat of the bar, like it was reproduced in the majority of the editions.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections

b. 25-27

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

Wedges in bars 26-27 in Atut, literal reading

Dots in bars 26-27 in Atut, contextual interpretation

Wedges in bars 25-27 in FE (→GE,EE)

No marks, interpretation of Atut suggested by the editors
..

According to us, the wedges with which the accompanying chords in the L.H. were provided in FE (→GE,EE) are a result of misunderstanding the notation of Atut in bars 26-27, where the repeated chords are written in an abbreviated manner as minims with quaver tremolos. Willing to draw the attention to this abbreviation, Chopin marked the individual quavers with dashes, which he then tried to transform into dots, generally used for this purpose. This measure turned out ineffective, whereas the engraver (reviser?) not only included the wedges, in spite of renouncing the abbreviation, but he also propagated wedges in bar 25. However, since the wedges do not mark articulation, they are superfluous and misleading in a notation that does not make use of abbreviations. Taking into account the above considerations, we do not include them in the main text. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Corrections in A , Wedges , Inaccuracies in A

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. 32

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

..

In Atut, one can see traces of changing the dynamic marking – while introducing cresc., Chopin removed the previous .

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A

b. 39

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

 in Atut

No marking in FE (→GE,EE)
..

 at the beginning of the bar was written in Atut in place of the previous . The absence of a marking in FE (→GE,EE) means that the engraver of FE probably did not understand this correction, considering the  mark written in bold font to be a deletion of . In the main text, we preserve the version of Atut, in which Chopin reviewed and corrected the dynamic markings – cf. e.g. bar 20 and 32. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in FE , Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections