mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 182

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

Different slurs in FE (→GE1→GE2)

Similar slurs in EE & GE3
..

The slurs of FE (→GE1→GE2) must be inaccurate, since the slur in the R.H. starts from the quaver, whereas the slur in the L.H. – from the semiquaver. However, it is not obvious which version is correct. A comparison of all analogous bars (bars 174, 182, 190, 204, 418, 426, 434 and 448) shows that it is the slurs starting from semiquavers that statistically prevail – out of 15 slurs (bar 174 is missing a slur in the L.H.) 11 begin in such a way; only 3 run already from the quaver (in bar 174, the slur in the R.H. may be interpreted twofold). Taking into account the above, we give slurs from semiquavers in the main text. It was interpreted in the same way also in EE and GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 183

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

Slurs from f2(1) in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

Slurs from b2(1) in GE3
..

An earlier beginning of the last slur in this bar, causing the slurs to overlap, seems to be an inaccuracy of notation, since such slurs do not appear in similar places at all. However, this version, potentially authentic, may be considered an acceptable variant. The slur was deemed inaccurate already in GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 204

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

Slur from semiquaver in FE

No slur in GE1 (→GE2)

Slur from quaver in EE & GE3
..

In the 1st half of the bar, FE has different slurs for the R.H. and for the L.H. We unify them in the main text by changing the slur in the L.H. after the slur in the R.H. A similar change was introduced in EE and GE3; in turn, the missing slur in the L.H. in GE1 (→GE2) is almost certainly a mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 205

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

Slurs in FE (→GE1→GE2)

Slurs in EE

Slurs in GE3
..

In the 1st half of the bar, FE (→GE1→GE2) has different slurs for the R.H. and for the L.H. We unify them in the main text by changing the slur in the L.H. after the slur in the R.H.; a similar change was introduced in EE. In GE3, the slurs were changed in the parts of both hands, assimilating the slurring of this bar to analogous bar 449. According to us, this solution, generally totally arbitrary, may be considered a justified attempt at reconstructing Chopin's intention, assuming it was inaccurately reproduced by FE (after all, it is quite likely that it was already in [A] that the slurs were being written hastily and inaccurately).  

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 207

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

No slur in FE

Slur in GE & EE
..

In FE, the missing slur is most probably an oversight related to the introduction of bass clef to the notation of f​​​​​​​. Anyway, it must be an inaccuracy, which was corrected already in GE and EE.
Distraction of the engraver of FE is proved also by the missing initial fragment of the next slur – it is only its ending in bar 208, on a new line, that was printed. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation