|
b. 277
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
In addition to the accent over the R.H. chord – see the preceding note – FE (→EE) also includes a category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 278-279
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
Both versions of the slurring may be authentic, and the version of FE is probably later. However, the fact that GE - the source that was, after all, based on GC - has a continuous slur shows how easy it was for the engraver of FE to misread the manuscript. Bearing that in mind, we take the slurs of EE and GC as our main text. The practical difference in performance is very slight anyway. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 278
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
In GC, this bar is marked as the repetition of the previous one, which must reflect the notation of the autograph. category imprint: Source & stylistic information issues: Abbreviated notation of A |
||||||||
|
b. 278
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
Same as in bar 130, we consider that it is more likely that the accent refers to the L.H. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||
|
b. 278
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
In A there is no category imprint: Interpretations within context issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors in GE , Errors of A |
in 
restoring a
. This patent mistake – cf. analogous bar 130 – remained unnoticed by Chopin both during the proofreading and lessons. Revisers of the editions also did not notice it.