mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE revisions

b. 182

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

Different slurs in FE (→GE1→GE2)

Similar slurs in EE & GE3
..

The slurs of FE (→GE1→GE2) must be inaccurate, since the slur in the R.H. starts from the quaver, whereas the slur in the L.H. – from the semiquaver. However, it is not obvious which version is correct. A comparison of all analogous bars (bars 174, 182, 190, 204, 418, 426, 434 and 448) shows that it is the slurs starting from semiquavers that statistically prevail – out of 15 slurs (bar 174 is missing a slur in the L.H.) 11 begin in such a way; only 3 run already from the quaver (in bar 174, the slur in the R.H. may be interpreted twofold). Taking into account the above, we give slurs from semiquavers in the main text. It was interpreted in the same way also in EE and GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 187

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

Single note in FE (→GE,EE1→EE2)

Chord in EE3
..

The version of FE (→EE1) is doubly incomplete:

  • the missing  before the 1st quaver of the bar is a patent inaccuracy. The defect was corrected in all remaining editions;
  • there is no visible reason to reject repetition of the entire F major chord – the chord corresponds to the orchestral part composed from the parts of FEorch (→GEorch) and to the one written in MFrorch, while the motif of five repeated chords is reproduced accurately in all 9 analogous places. The chord was introduced only in EE3.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors repeated in EE

b. 192

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

No slur in FE

Slur in GE & EE
..

The missing slur in the R.H. is a patent mistake of FE, corrected in the remaining editions.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 196

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

Faulty rhythm in FE

Reversed dotted rhythm in EE

Crotchets in GE

Other interpretation of rhythm in FE
..

There are three natural ways to add the rhythmic value in which the notation of FE is lacking; we give them as potentially compliant with Chopin's intention. Two of them were implemented already in the first editions. In the main text, we give the rhythm adopted in GE, which, according to us, is most likely due to the calming of the course of music (rallentando in the next bar) and due to the presence of that very rhythm in an analogous context in bar 440.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 197-198

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

No marking in FE (→GE1→GE2)

 in EE & GE3

[] suggested by the editors
..

The notation without  mark was probably present already in [A], since an analogous place in bars 441-442 is written in the same manner. Therefore, it is a particular case of omission of ​​​​​​​, used by Chopin at the end of a piece – after all, the solo part ends (temporarily) in bar 198. In this situation, it seems to be natural to hold the pedal to the end of bar 198 like it was indicated in EE and GE3, or a quaver longer, which may be suggested by the notation of the L.H. in bars 442-443. Since the cumulative notation of the solo part and of the piano reduction of the orchestral part causes the authentic notation – without  – to be misleading, in the main text we suggest to add that mark in a way to leave the exact moment of the pedal's release to the discretion of the performer.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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