Issues : Inaccuracies in FE
|
b. 597-598
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In accordance with the analysis of the Chopinesque category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 600-603
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
Those obvious inaccuracies in the three editons obscure deciphering Chopin's intentions regarding slurring of the part. In the main text we present the slurs notated without clear faults in GC. They represent possible articulationn of the chords progression. While interpreting the slur in # EE we assume that the error applies to b. 600 (half of the line spanning bars 598-600 has no slurs in EE). We retain the slurs in GE as despite the inaccurate copy of the basis (GC) they are formally correct. The FE slurs may be interpreted in a variety of ways, among others as distorted GC slurs or as the aforementioned. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 609
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Just like in a few other places (e.g. bar 250 and 577), one can ponder whether the long grace note is just a proof of the engraver's carelessness in this place. This is how it was assessed in GE; however, according to us, the situation in this bar is different (as well as in bar 607) – Chopin would frequently use grace notes in the form of small crotchets before longer values, e.g. minims (cf. e.g. the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, 1st mov., bar 208, as well as the Impromptu in G category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 620
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE, it is unclear whether the last note of the bottom voice should be encompassed with the slur or not. In the main text, we lead the slur to the penultimate note in the belief that Chopin used here portato articulation, which he marked with dots under a slur. In EE, the slur encompasses the entire group of 9 notes, which can be considered a variant, since such an interpretation is equally likely. The missing slur in GE and the con forza indication in FE, placed too low, which impeded drawing the slur, suggests that the slur was added in the last phase of proofreading of FE. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 629-631
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
According to us, the differences in the range of the category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in FC |
in 
marks in this and analogous pairs of bars (see 
Major, Op. 51, bar 104 or the Polonaise-Fantaisie, Op. 61, bar 209 and 212). Due to that reason, in the main text we leave the notation of 
in 
