mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

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. 309-314

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

No slurs in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slurs in bars 309-311 in GE3

Our suggestion
..

In this place, the absence of slurs must be considered Chopin's oversight. In the main text, we suggest slurs modelled after analogous bars 81-86. Slurs were added also in GE3, which took as an example its own slurring in bars 81-83 (the slur in the next bars was not added). See also bars 312-313.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 312-313

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

b repeated in FE (→EE)

b tied in GE3

Tied b suggested by the editors
..

The missing tie of the b2 crotchet is almost certainly an oversight – the tie is in analogous bars 84-85 and in violins I in FEorch. Chopin's or the engraver's distraction is additionally proven by missing slurs in bars 309-314.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 312-314

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

No dashes in FE (→EE)

Dashes in GE

Possible interpretation of FE

Different interpretation
..

Prolonging the range of crescendo to , like it was performed in GE, or even further, is justified – an accidental omission of such dashes is often to be found in first editions; it could have also happened to Chopin, e.g. at a transition to a new line. Moreover, it cannot be ruled out that ​​​​​​​ in bar 313 is written inaccurately. In the main text, however, we preserve the version of the principal source, i.e. FE (→EE), since in spite of suggestions of nuances, perhaps not intended by Chopin, that version correctly conveys the general dynamic image of that fragment.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 316

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

No indication in FE (→EE)

leggiero in GE

[leggieriss.] suggested by the editors
..

In this context, the missing dynamic indication in FE (→EE) must be considered an inaccuracy. Therefore, we suggest leggieriss. in the main text, with which Chopin provided that sequence in both of their previous appearances (bars 48 and 88). In the discussed bar, two other indications appearing in analogous places – Solo and  – are still missing, which seems to indicate that this fragment of [A] was developed in a less accurate manner.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 316

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

No marking in FE (→EE)

Solo in GE
..

In the main text, we take into account the addition of the Solo indication, introduced in GE, undoubtedly necessary after the 20-bar Tutti.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions