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
Verbal indications
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Verbal indications

b. 10

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

No marking in FE (→EE) & GE3

in GE1 (→GE2)
..

The additional  in GE1 (→GE2) must be a mistake – the engraver of GE1 saw ​​​​​​​ in FE in the antepenultimate bar in the line and placed that indication in a similar manner in his edition; however, he forgot that the first line in GE1 has one bar less. After discovering the mistake, the mark was added in the right place (in bar 9), yet the erroneous one (in bar 10) was not removed either due to inadvertence or its innocuous nature.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Partial corrections

b. 40

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

FE (→EE)

GE
..

According to us, FE (→EE) positioning legatiss. under the 2nd quaver is either a result of an inaccurate reproduction of [A] or an example of an indication written within the scope of its validity. There are no doubts that legatissimo is to be applied from the beginning of the bar, together with the slur. In GE, the indication was moved to the beginning of the bar.

The simultaneous presence of a slur and legatiss. probably indicates the use of 'harmonic legato' (holding elements of a chord with fingers); in this case, it would most probably consist in holding the bottom dyads longer.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Legato & slurs

b. 128

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

 mid-bar in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

 at beginning of bar in GE3
..

According to us, a comparison with the dynamic markings in analogous bars 132, 136 and 140 points to an inaccurate placement of the ​​​​​​​ mark in the majority of the sources. The reason could have been the fact that [A] used a convention of placing indications within their scope of validity, and not at the beginning. Therefore, in the main text we include the shift of the mark adopted in GE3.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Centrally placed marks

b. 132

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

 on 2nd quaver in FE (→EE)

 at beginning of bar in GE
..

A comparison with the dynamic markings in analogous bars 136 and 140 points to an inaccurate placement of the ​​​​​​​ mark in FE (→EE). In the main text, we take into account the shift of the mark adopted in GE. 

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

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Centrally placed marks

b. 232

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

 in FE (→GE,EE)

 suggested by the editors

Different interpretation of sources
..

The position of the  mark is insufficiently justified, as far as music is concerned – if the new phrase was supposed to be performed piano (following the previous forte), it should be performed so rather from the beginning of the bar. Therefore, it would be an example of applying the manner of placing indications within their scope of validity. However, the mark in [A] may have been only slightly moved beyond the 1st quaver in the L.H. due to lack of space between the staves. In the main text, we take an attempt to approximately reconstruct that placement; it can also be interpreted literally as ​​​​​​​ right after the beginning of the bar which would perform a double role – end the previous phrase and begin a new one.   

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Centrally placed marks