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

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. 254-259

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

Fingering written into FEH

No fingering in FE (→GE)

Fontana's fingering in EE in bar 258
..

Fontana's fingering in EE is most probably compliant with the one entered in FEH, although the indications themselves do not overlap. Providing indications only just in the second (identical) passage is noteworthy – it is a frequent phenomenon among the Chopinesque teaching entries.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FEH

b. 254-255

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

..

FE is missing naturals before the 6th semiquaver in bars 254 and 255. The patent inaccuracies were corrected in GE and EE. There is a similar situation in bar 258.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 256-257

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

FE (→GE,EE)

FEH, literal reading

FEH, contextual interpretation
..

The octave sign added in FEH most probably defines an authentic variant. According to us, it is much more likely that it was meant to move the entire figure of both hands by an octave, and not only of the R.H. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEH

b. 256-257

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

No slurs in FE (→GE1→GE2)

Slurs in EE & GE3
..

The slurs added in EE and GE3, probably by analogy with similar motifs in bars 250-251, may be considered justified – it cannot be ruled out that missing articulation indications in the L.H. are only an oversight. However, the context of both places is not fully analogous – bars 250-251 do not contain slurs, whereas in the discussed bars there is one slur over both figures. That slur can refer to both hands, which makes completion of slurs in the L.H. problematic.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions