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. 393-398

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

..

In EE, f​​​​​​​1 is tied both in bars 393-394 and 397-398.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 404-406

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

..

The traces visible in FE prove that each f quaver was provided with an additional crotchet stem in these bars, eventually removed in the proofreading. According to us, it was not the original version, since Chopin would not introduce holds that could not be performed even by a biggest possible hand. The engraver most probably misinterpreted the dashes that Chopin, being in haste, wrote automatically along with noteheads on ledger lines. That impulse was motivated by enhancing the visibility of a notehead slashed with a ledger line; this manner led to misunderstandings on a number of occasions – cf. e.g. the Mazurka in B Minor, Op. 24 No. 4, bar 23 or the Etude in F Major, Op. 10 No. 8, bars 4-7. The misunderstanding in the discussed bars could have influenced the engraver's decision to ignore possible staccato markings under those notes – he could have considered the simultaneous prolongation and shortening of those notes to be irrational; hence, bearing in mind the seven-time prolongation of f​​​​​​​ in bars 393-401, he opted for stems.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Uncertain notes on ledger lines

b. 408

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

FE, literal reading

FE, contextual interpretation

FE, different interpretation

GE & EE
..

When interpreted literally, the ambiguous, in terms of rhythmic values and division into parts, notation of FE may have a few possible versions. It is the interpretation based on a possible reconstruction of the notation of [A], rhythmically consistent, that we adopt as both the text of FE and the main text.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies

b. 469

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

..

In FE (→GE1→GE2), the second note in the L.H. is a crotchet, as a result of which the bar contains 5 quavers. The mistake, resulting from an inaccurate proofreading (the note was being changed from b to f​​​​​​​1, so the engraver might have erroneously printed here the next bar), was corrected in EE and GE3.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections , Rhythmic errors , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors repeated in GE

b. 479

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

..

In GE1 (→GE2), the last note of the 3rd triplet is a semiquaver, like the remaining ones. The mistake was corrected in GE3.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors