mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in GE

b. 398-399

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

2 slurs from 2nd note in FE

Different slurs in GE1 (→GE2) & EE

2 slurs from first note in GE3
..

Two subsequent slurs starting later than in the adjacent figures must be an inaccuracy of FE, partially repeated in GE1 (→GE2) and EE. In the main text, we move the beginnings of the slurs to over the 1st semiquaver, in accordance with the musical sense and analogous figures. Such a revision was introduced already in GE3.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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

b. 408

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

FE, literal reading

FE, contextual interpretation

FE, different interpretation

GE & EE
..

When interpreted literally, the ambiguous, in terms of rhythmic values and division into parts, notation of FE may have a few possible versions. It is the interpretation based on a possible reconstruction of the notation of [A], rhythmically consistent, that we adopt as both the text of FE and the main text.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies

b. 478

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

Slur over triplet in FE (→EE)

Slur from e4 in GE1 (→GE2)

No slur in GE3

Slur suggested by the editors
..

It is difficult to assume that Chopin would have liked to embrace with a slur only one triplet in this bar. The notation of [A] was most probably unclear (e.g. due to crossings-out) or a misunderstanding occurred at the time of proofreading. The slur of GE1 (→GE2) is most probably an erroneously shifted slur of FE, while its omission in GE3 was probably meant to eliminate the clearly erroneous mark. According to us, the presence of the slur in FE proves that Chopin did not intend to introduce subtler articulation effects; therefore, in the main text we prolong the slur of FE so that it encompasses the entire passage. An additional argument supporting the validity of such a solution are numerous examples of prolonged slurs in the proofreading of FE, e.g. in bar 493 or 496.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 478

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

..

FE is missing accidentals in the 2nd half of the bar. The patent inaccuracy was corrected in GE1 by adding a  raising a2 to a2. EE and GE3 contain also a  raising f2 to f​​​​​​​2.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 483

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

in FE (→EE)

​​​​​​​ in GE1 (→GE2)

Short accents in GE3

Long accents suggested by the editors
..

A comparison with analogous bar 487 proves that two ​​​​​​​ marks are supposed to be accents, hence in the main text we give them the form of long accents. In GE3, a more radical change was introduced, since the accents are short, just like in bar 487.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions