|
b. 556
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we adopt the change of slurring introduced in GE3. Chopin would sometimes use slurs over rests; however, in this case there are reasons to assume that the fact of having left one slur – most probably the original one, see bar 197 – was his inadvertence. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 556
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Errors of FC |
||||||||
|
b. 557-558
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
Both slurring variants are almost certainly authentic and musically justified. The EE and GC (→GE) version seems more informative - it suggests both overall continuity and uniformity of the phrase of bars 542-567 as well as marks the beginning of of the last decisive phrase of crescendo. Therefore, we present it in the main text, even though thef FE version may be the later one. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 557
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
Chopin must have overlooked the arpeggio signs, which is indicated by the arpeggios in analogous b. 553, 555 and 559. The composer overlooked the signs after changing to a new page of A. The arpeggios were already added in GE and EE (in EE continuous, like before). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Errors of A |
||||||||
|
b. 557-560
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The missing L.H. slurs in b. 557-558 and 559-560 is most probably an oversight of the engraver of FE. The presence of the latter in EE indicates a revision or a mistake. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE |
