b. 627-629
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
For the main text we adopt the scope of hairpins based on GC (→GE). In EE they are a little shorter, which may be treated as a parallel, slightly different version. A clearly earlier ending of the mark in FE seems less accurate, and moreover, according to an out-of-date convention the continuation of crescendo in b. 627, starting a new line, was marked with new hairpins. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Hairpins denoting continuation |
||||||
b. 628
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
In FE the last but one quaver in the bar is g2-g3, which is an obvious mistake. category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: Errors in FE |
||||||
b. 628
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||
b. 629-631
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
According to us, the differences in the range of the hairpin are accidental inaccuracies in the reproduction of the notation of A. In the main text we preserve the mark inserted by Chopin's hand, although its starting point cannot be clearly related to the other elements of notation, which was probably the reason for discrepancies in the remaining sources. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||
b. 630-640
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In bar 630, 635, 638 and 640 in FE, there are no little slurs combining the grace notes with the quaver that ends the motif. A comparison with the remaining similar bars of this 24-bar section points to oversights of the engraver of FE or of Chopin himself. In the main text, we add the overlooked little slurs like it was performed in GE and EE. category imprint: issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |