mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 411

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

​​​​​​​ in first half of bar in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

No ​​​​​​​ in GE3

Our alternative suggestion
..

The simultaneous presence of , under the L.H. part, and cresc. makes us assume an inaccuracy or mistake. The fact of GE3 having omitted this indication impairs the notation, yet it also clarifies it by eliminating an indication that is puzzling in this context. At the same time, since there are no arguments to reconstruct the notation intended by Chopin, in the main text we leave the notation of the majority of the sources, which presents the performer with an opportunity to guess the actual intention of the composer. Our alternative suggestion is based on an assumption that ​​​​​​​ was placed in the first half of the bar by mistake (it should have been placed in the second half).   

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 414

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

..

In GE3, the repeated chords were written in an abbreviated manner as a crotchet with semiquaver tremolo.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 419

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

Wedge in FE

2 wedges in GE & EE

No marks (our suggestion)
..

The version of FE with a wedge present only in the L.H. cannot correspond to Chopin's intention, who was clearly striving for homogeneous articulation markings in both hands in this theme. It is likely that the wedge in the R.H. was overlooked, like it was assessed in GE and EE; however, a glance at the markings of both appearances of the theme (bars 171-205 and 415-449) makes us assume an erroneously added wedge in this place, since a staccato mark at the end of a slur never appears in those fragments. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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

b. 420

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

..

In the L.H. part, there are erroneous c​​​​​​​2-b1 semiquavers in GE1. A similar mistake was present also in FE; however, it was corrected therein, probably in the last phase of proofreading. The subsequent GE contain the correct text.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Errors in FE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors repeated in GE

b. 420

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

No slur in FE

Slur in GE & EE
..

In FE, the missing slur in the L.H. is a patent inaccuracy (in addition, the staccato marks in the 2nd half of the bar were overlooked, not to mention the Terzverschreibung error – see the subsequent notes in this bar). The slur was added in GE and EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions