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


b. 53

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

 in FE

 in GE

in EE

..

The differences in the notation of the fcrotchet at the beginning of the 2nd half of the bar is probably a result of a mistake of the engraver of FE and revisions of the remaining editors. The dotted crotchet in the versions of FE and GE – regardless of the notation manner – implies a momentaneous split of the most bottom of the three upper voices, which, until that moment, was consistently led from the beginning of that phrase in bar 52. Due to this reason, we consider the crotchet in EE to be the most probably correct, where the natural sequence of the three upper voices, corresponding to Violin I, Violin II and Viola, is maintained.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 53

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

Rhythm in FE, literal reading

FE (probable interpretation→GE,EE)

Possible interpretation of FE

Combination of FEfort & FEorch

..

The literally reproduced notation of FE must be considered inaccurate if the rhythmic values in the 2nd half of the bar are correct (we omit the issue of the fcrotchet on the 3rd beat of the bar, discussed separately, which is irrelevant in this place). Due to this reason, in the main text we move the bquaver before the final semiquaver of the piano reduction; both GE and EE changed the notation in the same way. On the other hand, one can imagine a situation in which it is the layout of the text that reflects the intended relationship between the solo part and the accompaniment, i.e. a simultaneous performance of the last note in the bar in all parts, and it is the rhythm in the upper voice that is incorrect. It leads to the version suggested as an alternative interpretation of the notation of FE.
Considering the solo part with the FEorch orchestral part, hence while performing the Concerto with orchestra, the aforementioned simultaneity relationship also occurs, since in the parts of string instruments – violins and cellos – the note ending the bar is a quaver: . It leads to the last of the suggested versions in which the correct elements of the notation of FE are a quaver in the solo part and alignment of the notes, whereas the dotted rhythm in the two bottom voices is incorrect. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 53

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

No indication in sources

[Solo] suggested by the editors

..

In the main text, we add the [Solo] indication to emphasise the affiliation of the bquaver, separated from the subsequent part of the phrase due to the adopted division into great staves, to the solo part.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 53

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

Slur in FE (→EE)

No slur in GE

..

We regard the lack of slur as an oversight by the engraver of GE1, although it could have been added in FE at the last stage of proofreading.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 54

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

No slurs in FE (→EE,GE1GE2)

Slur in GE3

Our alternative suggestion (2 slurs)

..

In FE (→EE,GE1GE2), there are no slurs in the L.H., differently than in analogous bar 13. In GE3, a slur over the 1st half of the bar was added; it is difficult to say what the motivation of the reviser was for adding only one slur in this bar. In the main text, we preserve the notation of FE, since Chopin most probably considered the legato indication to be enough – cf. e.g. the Concerto in F minor, op. 21, the 1st mov., bar 139, in which the sempre legato indication replaced the slurs present in an analogous place. On the other hand, it cannot be excluded that legato was added as an easier way of correcting the accidentally overlooked slurs – in the entire theme (bars 54-62), Chopin provides the accompaniment with slurs already from the next bar (except for bar 58). Due to this reason, we suggest adding slurs in the discussed bar as an alternative solution.     

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Legato & slurs