mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

0
b. 196

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

Faulty rhythm in FE

Reversed dotted rhythm in EE

Crotchets in GE

Other interpretation of rhythm in FE
..

There are three natural ways to add the rhythmic value in which the notation of FE is lacking; we give them as potentially compliant with Chopin's intention. Two of them were implemented already in the first editions. In the main text, we give the rhythm adopted in GE, which, according to us, is most likely due to the calming of the course of music (rallentando in the next bar) and due to the presence of that very rhythm in an analogous context in bar 440.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 197-198

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

No marking in FE (→GE1→GE2)

 in EE & GE3

[] suggested by the editors
..

The notation without  mark was probably present already in [A], since an analogous place in bars 441-442 is written in the same manner. Therefore, it is a particular case of omission of ​​​​​​​, used by Chopin at the end of a piece – after all, the solo part ends (temporarily) in bar 198. In this situation, it seems to be natural to hold the pedal to the end of bar 198 like it was indicated in EE and GE3, or a quaver longer, which may be suggested by the notation of the L.H. in bars 442-443. Since the cumulative notation of the solo part and of the piano reduction of the orchestral part causes the authentic notation – without  – to be misleading, in the main text we suggest to add that mark in a way to leave the exact moment of the pedal's release to the discretion of the performer.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , No pedal release mark

b. 199-200

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

Slur in FE (→EE)

No slurs in GE1 (→GE2)

Slur in GE3

2 slurs suggested by the editors
..

The five-quaver slur in bars 199-200 was probably added in the last phase of proofreading of FE, which is indicated by its absence in GE. Leaving the 2nd quaver in bar 200 without slur may suggest different possibilities of phrasing and articulation. However, it is most probably an inaccuracy of notation, since in similar motifs the note, in the vast majority of situations – both in FEpiano and in the sources of the orchestral part – is connected to the previous one with a slur. Due to this reason, in the main text we suggest adding a respective slur (in GE3, it was added as the only slur in this place). There is a similar situation in bar 444. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 203

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

..

In FE, the grace notes in the R.H. are written a third higher than it would result from the L.H. part and all similar places (bars 173, 181, 189 and analog). The mistake was corrected both in GE and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 204

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

Slur from semiquaver in FE

No slur in GE1 (→GE2)

Slur from quaver in EE & GE3
..

In the 1st half of the bar, FE has different slurs for the R.H. and for the L.H. We unify them in the main text by changing the slur in the L.H. after the slur in the R.H. A similar change was introduced in EE and GE3; in turn, the missing slur in the L.H. in GE1 (→GE2) is almost certainly a mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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