|
b. 581-588
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
Accents in these bars may be interpreted as long (especially in FE, and probably in GC) or short (EE and GE, more probbale in GC). For the main text we adopt short accents because of the notation including rests at the end if each bar - if Chopin wanted to suggest longer sounds, he should have written crotchets. As and additional argument to support this view, we see that in FE in bars 613-616, repeating bars 581-584, there are short accents. In FE there is no accent in 588, which is obvious inaccuracy. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 581
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
The version of GE must be erroneous, which is supported by the logic of the course of the melodic line, confirmed by the version of analogous bar 69 and 230. Locally, the mistake is not manifest, so the reviser of EE3, having apparently a great confidence in GE, introduced that version instead of the correct text. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error |
||||||||
|
b. 581
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
Omission of the wedge over G is most probably an oversight of the engraver of GE3, although one also cannot exclude a revision, motivated, e.g. by the missing staccato mark in similar bar 597. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 581-582
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 581-582
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
Just like in the previous bars, an additional slur under the L.H. part is not necessary in this layout. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
