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
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 471

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

Dot in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Wedge in GE3
..

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 473

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

Short accent in FE (→GE,EE)

Long accent suggested by the editors
..

In FE, the accent in this bar is clearly shorter than in adjacent bars (there is a similar situation in bar 477). However, taking into account the fact that the note provided with that accent is a delay in the form of an appoggiatura, we suggest a long accent in the main text, more frequent in this context.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents

b. 474-475

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

​​​​​​​ in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

​​​​​​​ in GE3
..

The significantly shorter  hairpin with respect to analogous bars 472-473, musically unjustified, suggests an inaccuracy of notation. The reason for a later beginning of the mark could have been, e.g. lack of space in [A] – if FE had faithfully reproduced the layout of the autograph, Chopin would have had less space under the L.H. part in the discussed bars due to all stems pointing downwards. In turn, an earlier ending could have been related to the semiquavers passing to the upper stave (both elements of the layout were not taken into account in our transcriptions). Therefore, in the main text we give a ​​​​​​​ mark analogous to the one in bars 472-473. A similar change was introduced in GE3.  

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions

b. 475

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

No mark in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Short accent in GE3

Long accent suggested by the editors
..

The missing accent does not have to be considered an oversight in this case – cf. the twin phrases of this three-part progression (bars 473 and 477). Therefore, in the main text we suggest a long accent in accordance with the interpretation adopted in the mentioned bars. An accent (short) was added in GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , GE revisions

b. 476-477

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

No sign in FE (→GE,EE)

[] suggested by the editors
..

The missing crescendo mark under the last of the three semiquaver sequences constituting the ascending progression must be considered an inaccuracy of notation, since there are no doubts that it must be performed analogously to the previous two. Due to this reason, in the main text we suggest adding a hairpin after most accurately marked bars 472-473.

category imprint: Editorial revisions