mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II

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. 122

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

..

In the main text, we add a cautionary  before the a minim. The mark was added already in GE and EE2 (→EE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 123

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

h1 in FE (→EE) & GE3

g1 in GE1 (→GE2)
..

The version of GE1 (→GE2) must be an example of a Terzverschreibung error, revised in GE3.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions

b. 125

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

Fingering written into FES

No teaching fingering
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES

b. 125

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

No slur in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slur in GE3

Slur suggested by the editors
..

The missing slur under the last semiquaver triplet seems to be an inaccuracy of notation, although one cannot exclude that in the face of the progressing smorzando, Chopin did not feel the need to clarify the legato articulation of these notes. The reviser of GE3 considered the missing slur to be an inaccuracy.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions