mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 387

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

..

In FE, there is no accidental before the 2nd chord. The inaccuracy was corrected in the remaining editions by adding a ​​​​​​​ before the top note (d3) in GE1 (→GE2) and EE and before the bottom one in GE3. The difference can be explained by the fact that it is only in GE3 that the 1st chord of the bar is written without octave sign.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 388

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

..

FE does not contain any accidentals in the last semiquaver triplet. The patent inaccuracy was rectified in GE and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 389

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

..

In FE (→EE,GE1→GE2), the 2nd half of the bar is written with the help of octave sign; at the same time, FE (→GE1→GE2) does not contain a single accidental therein. EE tried to correct the inaccuracy by adding sharps before e3 and a​​​​​​​2 and a ​​​​​​​ before d3. GE3 has the same notation we adopted in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 390-391

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

..

FE is missing the sharps raising e3 to e​​​​​​​3. The accidentals were added in the remaining editions.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals

b. 393-394

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

Tie to f​​​​​​​1 in FE, possible interpretation

Slur ​​​​​​​​- in FE (different interpretation→GE1→GE2)​​​​​​

Slur & tie in EE

Neither slur nor tie in GE3
..

The curved line in FE is present only in the 2nd half of bar 393 (the last on a page), and it is unclear whether it runs from d1 or f​​​​​​​1. In the face of the missing ending in bar 394, it is difficult to determine its nature – it can be a motivic slur combining d1-e1,  like it was reproduced in GE1 (→GE2), or a tie of f1. The version of EE with two curved lines is probably arbitrary. In addition, it cannot be excluded that the very presence of a curved line in this place is a mistake; perhaps it was meant to be a tie of f1 in bar 392-393 – cf. the tie in bars 400-401 (it was considered erroneous probably in GE3).

In the main text, we omit this unclear and dubious marking, which results in a version compliant with analogous bars 397-398. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions