Issues : Inaccuracies in FE
|
b. 412-435
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In A the slurs over the motifs of the bottom voice encompass the quavers only or reach the minim in the next bar. However, the differences are almost certainly of an accidental nature, hence in the main text we unify them, assuming 6-note slurs to be more frequent in A (7 longer, 2 shorter and 3 questionable). Accidental inaccuracies are also present in the remaining sources, except for GE, in which all slurs encompass 5 notes. The majority of the doubts concerning the range of the slurs is due to the ending lines: a slur suggesting continuation is not finished in a new line (b. 418-419 in A and FC, 432-433 in A, 412-413, 420-421 and 428-429 in FE and b. 422-423 in EE). In such situations we give shorter slurs in our transcriptions, just like in b. 426-427 in A and 412-413 in 428-429 in FC, which may be thought to be dubious. EE omitted the slur in b. 420-421. Neither FC nor FE, EE and GE reproduced the notation of the Stichvorlage correctly; however, the total number of inaccuracies in this section is smaller than the first time (b. 310-333). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in EE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in FC , Uncertain slur continuation |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 413-435
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The accents written in A in b. 413, 415 and analog. mean almost certainly the same despite differences, generally minor ones, in length and shape. The majority of the marks is rather short; however, four (b. 417, 425, 433 and 435) are definitely long, which makes us provide the main text with long accents only. At the same time, we add the accents Chopin overlooked in b. 419 and 431. We consider the version of GE2 (→GE3) with a complete set of short accents to be an alternative solution. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 419-420
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
The division of the clear slur of A into 3 parts is an example of a far-reaching carelessness showed towards the Chopinesque slurring in GE1. In turn, it is unclear whether the combination of the first two of these slurs in FE (→EE) is a result of a mere inaccuracy or of a conscious decision of the engraver. GE2 includes the same slurs, which was undoubtedly done on purpose in this case – the slurring was introduced in all analogous places. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 419
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
The version of FE with a wedge present only in the L.H. cannot correspond to Chopin's intention, who was clearly striving for homogeneous articulation markings in both hands in this theme. It is likely that the wedge in the R.H. was overlooked, like it was assessed in GE and EE; however, a glance at the markings of both appearances of the theme (bars 171-205 and 415-449) makes us assume an erroneously added wedge in this place, since a staccato mark at the end of a slur never appears in those fragments. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 420
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
In this place, the long accent was reproduced in GE1 correctly, yet in FE (→EE) it was replaced with a common short accent, whereas in GE2 – with a category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
in