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. 373-374

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

d2 repeated in FE (→EE)

d2 tied in GE
..

The notation of FE is unclear – in bar 374, opening a new line of text, an ending of a slur that was probably reaching the top note of the d2-b2 sixth was printed (the slur is inaccurate, it cannot be ruled out that it was supposed to apply to the bottom note), yet in bar 373, there is no slur suggesting continuation in the next bar. GE and EE specified the notation differently:

  • in GE, the fragment of the curved line in bar 374 was considered a tie of d2, and we consider that interpretation to be correct (cf. the unquestionable notation of analogous bars 377-378);
  • EE adopted a natural, at first sight, interpretation of the curved line as a motivic slur (we also consider it to be the text of FE); when interpreted so, the last d2 in bar 373 is not tied to the next bar​​.

Moreover, if we assume that the slur in the 2nd half of bar 373 was inaccurately reproduced and is too short, the discussed fragment of the slur in bar 374 may be considered an ending of that slur. We discuss this and other issues related to slurs and phrase marks in a separate note.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 373

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

Crotchet in FE (→GE1→GE2)

Dotted crotchet in EE & GE3

Dotted crotchet suggested by the editors
..

In FE (→GE1→GE2), the missing dot prolonging the c3 crotchet seems to be an inaccuracy of notation, since that note is naturally continued by b2 at the beginning of the next bar. There is no reason (also pianistic) to break the two-part notation. The dot was added already in EE and GE3. There is a similar situation in bar 377. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 377

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

Semiquavers in FE (→GE,EE)

Dotted rhythm suggested by the editors
..

According to us, there is a strong likelihood that the version of the sources is erroneous. It is indicated by the dotted rhythm in the analogous phrase in bar 373 as well as in bars 381, 383 and 385. The analysis of the sources of the orchestral part also suggests a mistake in the notation of the rhythm of the L.H. part – see e.g. MFrorch.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Dotted or even rhythm

b. 377

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

Crotchet in FE

Dotted crotchet in GE & EE

Dotted crotchet suggested by the editors
..

Like in bar 373, we consider the missing dot prolonging f2 to be an inaccuracy of notation. Our view was shared already by the revisers of GE and EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 384-385

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

e2-e3 repeated in FE (→GE1→GE2)

e2-e3 tied in EE & GE3

Tying of e2-e3 suggested by the editors
..

The missing ties of the e2-e3 octave are most probably an oversight – cf. the analogous motifs in bars 381 and 383. Due to this reason, we suggest ties of this octave in the main text. Relevant additions were performed already in EE and GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions