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

Verbal indications

b. 254

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

in FE (→EE)

No marking in GE
..

The missing  in GE seems to be an oversight of the engraver of GE1. However, performing this highly spectacular passage in  dynamics is quite an uncommon effect, so that one can ponder whether the mark was not put in FE by mistake, e.g. instead of in bar 256, in which it was then added. Therefore, it would be an example of unfinished proofreading. (Cf. bar 248, in which a purely virtuoso element – scale in an interval of sixth – is dynamically distinguished between ​​​​​​​ in bar 244 and leggierissimo in bar 250).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 312-314

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

No dashes in FE (→EE)

Dashes in GE

Possible interpretation of FE

Different interpretation
..

Prolonging the range of crescendo to , like it was performed in GE, or even further, is justified – an accidental omission of such dashes is often to be found in first editions; it could have also happened to Chopin, e.g. at a transition to a new line. Moreover, it cannot be ruled out that ​​​​​​​ in bar 313 is written inaccurately. In the main text, however, we preserve the version of the principal source, i.e. FE (→EE), since in spite of suggestions of nuances, perhaps not intended by Chopin, that version correctly conveys the general dynamic image of that fragment.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 316

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

No indication in FE (→EE)

leggiero in GE

[leggieriss.] suggested by the editors
..

In this context, the missing dynamic indication in FE (→EE) must be considered an inaccuracy. Therefore, we suggest leggieriss. in the main text, with which Chopin provided that sequence in both of their previous appearances (bars 48 and 88). In the discussed bar, two other indications appearing in analogous places – Solo and  – are still missing, which seems to indicate that this fragment of [A] was developed in a less accurate manner.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 316

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

No marking in FE (→EE)

Solo in GE
..

In the main text, we take into account the addition of the Solo indication, introduced in GE, undoubtedly necessary after the 20-bar Tutti.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 327-328

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

​​​​​​​ in FE (→EE)

No marking in GE1 (→GE2)

​​​​​​​ in GE3
..

The missing  in GE suggests that it was added in the last phase of proofreading of FE. In GE3, the absence of the dynamic marking at the beginning of the Tutti was considered a mistake, and ​​​​​​​ was arbitrarily added in bar 327.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE