



b. 122
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
Missing in GC and FE are the naturals cancelling the sharping of e to e sharp before the last crotchet of the bar, which is an obvious error. EE and GE have the correct version, consistent with the analogous bars 40 and 382. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Errors of GC |
||||||||
b. 122-123
|
composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major
..
In EE, GE and FE1 (→FE2) there is no tie sustaining the g note to the next bar. FE3 corrected this inaccuracy. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , FE revisions |
||||||||
b. 122-123
|
composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor
..
The category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 122
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor
..
The sharp before the bottom note of the chord appears only in the later sources, bearing traces of an intense editorial revision – EE2 (→EE3) and GE2 (→GE3). The revisers could have considered the category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 122
|
composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor
..
The moment of starting the slur in FC is unclear, which most probably corresponds to the notation of [A] and which would explain both the slur of FE and of GE (the seemingly shortened slur in GE3 is most probably a print fault). However, according to us, in this type of context, the written with panache beginning of the slur could concern only the 2nd crotchet in Chopin's intention – cf., e.g., the Mazurka in G minor, Op. 24 No. 1, bar 21. An additional argument for such an interpretation of this slur can be the slur of EE in bars 121-122. The total absence of the discussed slur in EE is most probably accidental. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC |