|
b. 600-603
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
Those obvious inaccuracies in the three editons obscure deciphering Chopin's intentions regarding slurring of the part. In the main text we present the slurs notated without clear faults in GC. They represent possible articulationn of the chords progression. While interpreting the slur in # EE we assume that the error applies to b. 600 (half of the line spanning bars 598-600 has no slurs in EE). We retain the slurs in GE as despite the inaccurate copy of the basis (GC) they are formally correct. The FE slurs may be interpreted in a variety of ways, among others as distorted GC slurs or as the aforementioned. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 600-620
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I category imprint: |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 600
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we lead the slur from the previous bars to the very end of the phrase. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 601-604
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
For the main text we adopt the GC (→GE) slur as most probably directly based on the autograph. It cannot be ruled out however that the earlier beginning of the slur in EE is the original Chopin's intention. No slur in FE is just one of numerous proofs of Chopin's less meticulous edit of the part in [A2] (cf. annotation in b. 373. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 601
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
Regradless of the differences in length and placement, the marks in all the sources (except GE1, where there is no mark) clearly fall on the minim on the second beat of the bar, which allows for seeing a long accent here - more or less precisely copied. category imprint: Interpretations within context issues: Long accents |
