mUltimate Chopin

Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in FE

b. 1-5

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

..

In FE (→GE1→GE2), the last quaver in the L.H. is a B1-G sixth in bar 1 and an A1-G seventh in bar 5. A comparison with the remaining sources of the orchestral part – FEorch (→GEorch), as well as MFrorch – proves mistakes of the engraver of FE. Respective corrections were introduced in EE and GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Errors repeated in GE

b. 7

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

Small crotchet in FE

Acciaccatura in GE

Appoggiatura in EE
..

The authenticity of the grace note in the form of a small crotchet raises serious doubts – a small quaver occurs here in the Flute I part of FEorch (→GEorch). The discussed notation was found erroneous already in GE and EE, and both introduced forms of grace notes may be considered to be potentially compliant with the notation of [A]. In the main text, we adopt slashed quavers, most frequently used by Chopin.

See I mov., bar 250.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 23

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

..

Due to the fact that the octave sign used to write the 1st half of the next bar was started too early, the last semiquaver in FE is an erroneous f​​​​​​​4. The mistake was corrected both in GE and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 54

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

..

In FE (→GE1→GE2), the octave sign begins only just in the next bar. The patent mistake was corrected in EE straight away, yet only just in the second edition (GE3) of GE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Errors repeated in GE

b. 72-73

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

Inverted long accent in bar 72 in FE

​​​​​​​ in bar 72 in GE1 (→GE2)

2 inverted accents in EE

​​​​​​​ in bar 73 in GE3

2 accents suggested by the editors

Our alternative suggestion
..

In FE (→EE), the reversed accent is probably a mistake of the engraver, which is indicated by the common accent in analogous bar 300. Therefore, in the main text we give an accent both in this and in the next bar, like Chopin marked it in bars 300-301. There is also a possibility that the ​​​​​​​ hairpin in the 1st half of the bar was inaccurately placed – such a hairpin is present in (in bars 72 and 73) clarinet I in FEorch (→GEorch). The interpretation of the mark in GE1 (→GE2), graphically close to the version of FE, is, however, contrary to the actual sound of the orchestra, in which it is the chord in the middle of the bar that is played by the greatest number of instruments. GE3 tried to mitigate that discrepancy by moving the mark to bar 73, where it is a sui generis introduction to the authentic cresc. in bar 74. 

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

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Sign reversal