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. 1-5

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

..

In FE (→GE1→GE2), the last quaver in the L.H. is a B1-G sixth in bar 1 and an A1-G seventh in bar 5. A comparison with the remaining sources of the orchestral part – FEorch (→GEorch), as well as MFrorch – proves mistakes of the engraver of FE. The correct text – a G1-G octave in both places – was introduced in EE and GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Errors repeated in GE

b. 7

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

Small crotchet in FE

Acciaccatura in GE

Appoggiatura in EE
..

The authenticity of the grace note in the form of a small crotchet raises serious doubts – a small quaver occurs here in the Flute I part of FEorch (→GEorch). The discussed notation was found erroneous already in GE and EE, and both introduced forms of grace notes may be considered to be potentially compliant with the notation of [A]. In the main text, we adopt slashed quavers, most frequently used by Chopin.

See I mov., bar 250.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 10

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

No marking in FE (→EE) & GE3

in GE1 (→GE2)
..

The additional  in GE1 (→GE2) must be a mistake – the engraver of GE1 saw ​​​​​​​ in FE in the antepenultimate bar in the line and placed that indication in a similar manner in his edition; however, he forgot that the first line in GE1 has one bar less. After discovering the mistake, the mark was added in the right place (in bar 9), yet the erroneous one (in bar 10) was not removed either due to inadvertence or its innocuous nature.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Partial corrections

b. 14

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

Whole-bar rest in FE (→GE1→GE2)

No rest in EE & GE3
..

The rest on the top stave is most probably a mistake – in this bar, both parts are still written on the bottom stave. This is how it was interpreted in EE and GE3, where the rest was removed.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 17

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

No mark in FE (→GE,EE)

Vertical accent suggested by the editors
..

According to us, the missing accent over g​​​​​​​2 is an inaccuracy of notation – in all analogous bars, 10 times in total, the respective note is accentuated. In the main text, we add a vertical accent, with which Chopin provided such a crotchet in 5 subsequent appearances of that phrase.

category imprint: Editorial revisions