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. 92

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

No marks in FE (→GE,EE)

Wedges added by editors
..

According to us, the missing staccato marks over the quavers in the 1st half of the bar must be considered an inaccuracy of notation:

  • if Chopin had wanted a different articulation in this place, he would have certainly marked the change, which appears on the seventh appearance of this motif;
  • all the remaining markings – slurs, accents, dynamic hairpins and even wedges in bars 93 and 95 were included (in an identical or very similar form). Therefore, an intentional simplification of notation is out of the question. 

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 93

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

No ornament in FE (→GE,EE1→EE2)

Mordent in EE3
..

The mordent added in EE3 is a unifying addition of revision – this is the only place in which the 2nd bar of the theme, containing that motif, is devoid of mordent. Could it be that the ornament was overlooked in FE? It cannot be entirely ruled out; however, taking into account the fact that the first time the theme was presented the motif with mordent and the motif without ornament appear alternately twice (the first in bars 18 and 26, and the second in bars 22 and 30), we do not see the need to improve the text in the majority of the sources in this place.      

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 93-94

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

Pedalling in FE (→GE,EE)

Shifting suggested by the editors

Our alternative suggestion

Supplement suggested by the editors
..

The pedalling in bar 93 must be erroneous – juxtaposing dominant with tonic (in this order) rings false in this texture, and it is difficult to assume that Chopin would have wanted to achieve such a result. However, it is not obvious how one could rectify that mistake. There are a few possibilities:

  1. moving the  mark in bar 93 to the middle of the bar. A sound result of such modified pedalling does not significantly deviate from the authentic one given in analogous bars 18-19 and 26-27;
  2. moving the pedal change written under the bar line half a bar earlier. It results in a sonically enhanced variant of the authentic pedalling;
  3. completing the source markings by adding a pedal change in the middle of bar 93.

In the main text, we suggest the latter, which allows for elimination of mixed chords without moving the markings featured in the sources. We also recommend the 2nd suggestion, which complements the unquestionable pedalling of the analogous bars. There is a similar situation in bars 97-98.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 93

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

Slur from f​​​​​​​2 in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slur from g​​​​​​​2 in GE3
..

We consider the slur from the 2nd semiquaver of the bar to be possibly inaccurate – see bar 30. Due to this reason, in the main text we give a slur over the entire 1st half of the bar. The slur was started earlier also in GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 96

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

Wedge in FE (→EE)

No mark in GE
..

The missing wedge in GE must be an oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE