Issues : Errors in EE

b. 345-347

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

EE and GC

GE1 (contextual interpretation) and FE2 & GE2

..

A correct text of LH in these three bars is a result of revisions in FE2 and GE2. An error in b. 345 (repetition of g-f seventh) must have already been present in the autograph, proven by the consistency of EE and GC. In FE1 the correct text of bars 346-347 was printed, by mistake we suppose, in bars 345-346, which resulted in a repetition of g2-f3 seventh in bars 346-347. To keep octaves between dyads in these bars an actave sign was added in b. 347 (Chopin may have done hastily upon correction). In GE1 the seventh in b. 345 was elevated to the right pitch but on the upper note instead of two sharps there is only one printed.

 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , FE revisions , Errors of GC

b. 348

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

No marking in EE

 in GC (→GE) & FE

..

Lack of  in EE is either an omission or echoes one of the earlier stages of the Scherzo notation.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE

b. 351

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

 in FE (→GE) & EE3

No sign in EE1 (→EE2)

Interpretation of  suggested by the editors

Long accent, our alternative suggestion

..

When interpreted literally, the  in FE (→GE) is puzzling, since  denotes a local dynamic climax, after which one should rather expect a diminuendo, not to mention a crescendo on one note, problematic to perform on the piano. Therefore, we are probably dealing with an inaccuracy or even a mistake. One can imagine two possibilities – the mark was misplaced (e.g. moved to the right with respect to the notation of [A]) or reversed. In the main text, we are inclined to agree with the first possibility due to a similarly distorted  hairpin in the Concerto in F minor, op. 21, the 2nd mov., bar 84. The absence of the mark in EE1 (→EE2) seems to be an oversight, corrected in EE3

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in EE , Sign reversal

b. 353

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

..

In EE1, one of the naturals was misplaced, since it was put before the 1st note of the chord, a1 (which does not require a mark), instead of before the topmost note, which, consequently, should be interpreted as d2. A reduction of this version would be contrary to the orchestral part, in which it is dthat is featured in oboe I, clarinet I and violin I. The mistake was corrected already in EE2 (→EE3).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE

b. 367

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

c in FE (→GE)

e in EE

..

The version of EE is erroneous – cf. analogous bar 359; the mistake was probably caused by the similarity of subsequent triplets. In FEH, an annotation in the form of 'ut,' i.e. c, was written next to that note, which can be interpreted as a note that it is not an e.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Errors in EE , Terzverschreibung error , Annotations in FEH