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

Rhythm

b. 340

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

..

GE2 (→GE3) removed the rests of the solo piano part. The reason was probably the fact that they had been placed in GE1 clearly after the quaver ending the Tutti – particularly the R.H. may give an impression that the bar contains 5 quavers. The notation of FE does not pose such a threat, and the one of EE even less.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 354-355

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

No slur or tie in FE (→GE)

Tie to ​​​​​​​G1 in EE (probable reading)

Slur in EE (different reading)
..

The curved line added in EE was probably supposed to indicate a hold of the G​​​​​​​1 quaver until the next bar. However, it is not entirely certain, since the status of the authentic staccato dot under that note is uncertain – one dot merged with the slur running over the stave placed below, whereas the second one, placed next to it, is so poorly visible that one can consider it to be a remaining element after the removal of that mark.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 361-369

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

Different rests in FE

Crotchet rests in GE

Quaver rests in EE
..

In bars 361 and 369, identical in terms of rhythm, the rests of FE are of different rhythmic value – there is a quaver rest in bar 361 and a crotchet one in bar 369. Both notations mean practically the same and both can be considered justified:

  • the quaver rest results in a formally correct, although slightly artificial two-part notation;
  • the crotchet rest provides for a less strict, yet more natural three-part notation.

It is difficult to determine whether it is a result of a mistake of the engraver or Chopin's hesitation. The notation was unified both in GE and EE, although differently in each edition. Each of those versions may correspond to Chopin's intention. However, since the performance manner is unquestionable, we preserve the differentiated notation of FE in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Chopin's hesitations , GE revisions

b. 369-370

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

F1 tied in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

F1 repeated in GE3
..

In FE (→GE1→GE2), the tie of F1 is present only in bar 169 (at the end of the line). EE corrected the patent defect, whereas GE3 completely omitted the tie, which is probably a mistake. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 371

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

..

In FEH, the bottom F minim is crossed out. Like in a few other cases, it is just an additional reminder that the note should not be played and not an actual abandonment of the tie, according to us. Such a transfer of the bass note while preserving a common note is one of the characteristic Chopinesque procedures, c.f. e.g. bars 360-363 i 368-369 as well as the Etude in C Major, Op. 10 No. 1, bars 49-50 and 65-66 or the Fantasy in A Major, Op. 13, bars 114-119.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FEH