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. 360

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

Fingering written into FEH

No fingering in FE (→GE)

Fontana's fingering in EE
..

The fingerings of EE and FEH are certainly compliant. There is a similar situation in analogous bar 368. It does not guarantee their authenticity, although in this context one can be almost certain that it is actually a Chopinesque fingering.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 360

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

No fingering in FE (→GE)

Fontana's fingering in EE
..

The finger swap marked by Fontana in EE emphasises the need for a strict realisation of the sustained bass notes in this and the next bars – see bars 361-363.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 361

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

No mark in FE (→GE,EE)

Accent suggested by the editors
..

The missing third accent is almost certainly an oversight – cf. bars 363 and 371.

category imprint: Editorial 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. 361-363

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

..

In FE, only some of the g notes (in various octaves) are provided with necessary naturals – G and g2 in bar 361 and G-g in bar 363 (Chopin would often repeat accidentals before tied notes, which we do not apply in our transcriptions – see General Editorial Principles). All necessary accidentals were already added both in GE and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals