mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in GE

b. 228-229

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

3 slurs in FE (→EE)

No slurs in GE1 (→GE2)

Slur in bar 229 in GE3
..

The lack of three subsequent slurs in the L.H. part is almost certainly an oversight of the engraver of GE1 (→GE2). A slur in the bottom voice in bar 229 was added in GE3 after analogy with adjacent bars.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 230

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

Third in FE (→EE)

Only e1 in GE
..

The version of GE most probably resulted from an oversight of the engraver of GE1 – cf. analogous bar 249.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 244-245

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

 in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

No sign in GE3

 in bar 244 suggested by the editors
..

According to us, the  hairpin in bar 245 was placed in the sources on the wrong side of the bar line. It is indicated by the mark in the next, analogous phrase, appearing earlier, at the end of the first bar of the phrase. Such subsequent, short  marks are most probably meant to indicate gentle long accents, hence their accurate placement is essential for the correct interpretation of their meaning. Taking that into account, in the main text we move the mark to under the last triplet in bar 244, after the mark in bar 246, which, according to us, interacts better with the remaining hairpins and accents in bars 244-247.
​​​​​​​The absence of the mark in GE3 is most probably an oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in GE

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. 272-273

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

 in FE (→GE1→GE2)

   in EE

No pedalling in GE3

Our variant suggestion
..

The missing  mark does not have to be considered a mistake – such a notation is to be found on several occasions in Chopin's pieces (e.g. in the autograph of the Etude in D​​​​​​​ Major, Op. 25 No. 8, bars 19-20). The marks we suggest are the earliest and latest possible – due to harmonic reasons – moments of pedal release. It was already EE that considered the notation of FE to be inaccurate; in turn, an additional omission of the  mark is probably a mistake of GE3. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , No pedal release mark