mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 160-162

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

No slurs in FE (→GE1→GE2)

6 slurs in EE & GE3

Slur over bars 160-162 written into FEH
..

The missing slurs over three subsequent figures in bars 161-162 (in both hands) must be a result of graphic difficulties at the time of writing slurs between the parts of both hands, written on one stave. In EE and GE3, in which each hand was placed on a separate stave, the slurs were added. According to us, the three-bar slur entered in FEH emphasises the difference in articulation and in general character between bars 156-159 and 160-162 and the following ones. In the main text, we do not include that slur, having the nature of a teaching comment.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Annotations in FEH

b. 163

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

Slurs in FE (→GE1→GE2)

Slurs in EE & GE3
..

We include the added and corrected slurs of EE and GE3 in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 167

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

Crotchet f1 in FE (→EE)

No crotchet f1 in GE

Quaver f1 suggested by the editors
..

The rhythmic notation of the 2nd and 3rd quavers of the bar is inaccurate in the sources. In FE (→EE), the f1 semiquaver is provided with an additional crotchet stem and also with a tie sustaining it to the next f1 on the 3rd quaver. As a result, the value of the crotchet was written in two ways, which seems to be a superfluous complication, particularly since prolongation of the respective note in the L.H. was marked only with a tie (imprecisely yet indisputably). In the main text, we suggest adding a quaver flag, which results in a precise notation taking into account all elements of the authentic notation. GE omitted the additional stem, which simplified but also impoverished the notation. Moreover, GE1 (→GE2) overlooked the tie of b (added in GE3).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 171-175

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

No L.H. slurs in FE

Slurs in GE & EE
..

The missing slurs of FE must be an inaccuracy of notation – except minor inaccuracies, in the entire theme, both here and in bars 415-449, identical slurs are written in the parts of both hands. Slurs were added both in GE and EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 177

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

..

There are no accidentals before the 3rd quaver in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2), so that the notes should be interpreted as d1-f​​​​​​​1. The obvious mistake is indicated by the orchestral part, which features d1 (in violins II) both in the parts of FEorch (→GEorch) and MFrorch. A comparison with the reappearance of that theme, a second higher, also clearly supports d1, since the respective place (bar 421) features e1 and not e1. It is the first of a few serious mistakes of FE concerning the notation of the orchestral inserts of that theme – cf. bar 179, 186, 187.
The natural lowering d1 to d1 was added in GE3.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions