|
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 |
||||||||
|
b. 558-560
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we give the notation of FE (→EE) with motivic slurs, combining pairs of lower middle notes of chords, d1-c1 and c1-b. However, one cannot exclude that the engraver of FE misinterpreted the notation of [A], in which those slurs were ties of the bottommost notes (b and a, respectively), like the upper ties of the topmost notes. Therefore, it would be the notation of GE that would correspond to Chopin's intention. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
