![](/build/images/logo_left-en.png)
![](/build/images/pl-button.5cab5de0.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button.d3d09842.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button-en.5098433b.png)
Issues : Inaccuracies in GC
b. 35-36
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
Differences between the sources seem to result here from inaccuracy of notation, or even from somewhat imprecise notation of Chopin himself. For that reason we propose a slur modelled after the phrasing in analogous bars 117-118. See also bars 377-381. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC |
|||||||||||
b. 38-41
|
composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major
..
Only EE recreated the notation of the slurs of A correctly. The version of FE, despite shortening the slurs, does not change the general idea of Chopin's phrasing. However, both the inaccurate slurs of GC and their arbitrary interpretation in GE distort the phrasing determined by Chopin. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in GC |
|||||||||||
b. 39
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
[A] most probably included wedges, as Gutmann considered them to be staccato dots on a number of occasions (cf., e.g., the Etude in F major, Op. 25 No. 3, bars 49-52). Chopin wedges were actually often misinterpreted as dots also by the engravers, in turn, misinterpretation of dots as wedges was almost inexistent. Therefore, in the main text we give wedges, added in FE2 (→EE,FE3→FE4) most probably on the basis of [A]. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions , Wedges , Inaccuracies in GC |
|||||||||||
b. 40-41
|
composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major
..
Both the omission of the category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC |
|||||||||||
b. 41-44
|
composition: Op. 25 No 3, Etude in F major
..
Similarly as in bars 20-24, in the notation of [A] – for the notation of the autograph we consider the compatible version of GC and FE – seven necessary accidentals (naturals) are missing, which, however, does not impede the correct interpretation of the text. In EE1 (→EE2), the notation is already more accurate (in relation to GC and FE 2 signs were added, in the R.H. in bar 41), while the next 3 naturals were added in EE3. GE has the correct version, yet in GE1 there are no signs in the 2nd group in bar 43, which, from the graphical point of view, is the same as the previous one (repeating the signs in such situation is a question of convention). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC |