Issues : EE inaccuracies
|
b. 466-477
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we present both consistent and natural slurring of FE (and GE). In EE the slurs over chorale phrases in these bars are shorter, analogous to previous examples (in b. 226). In GC the slur in bars 474-476 (b. 476 is the last one on the page) is ambiguous as its ending suggest conitnuation but it doesnt extend over in b. 477, moreover its beginning is notated as boldly as its ending, hence its cautious interpretation. We then assume - contrary to GE - that the slur extends over 3 bars only. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 485-486
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
According to us, the virtuoso panache and brilliance require rather accents than diminuendos, hence in the main text we interpret all marks of A as accents (long and short). The category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 486-487
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the accents added in the proofreading of FE (→EE) on c in bar 486 and on C in bar 487. In turn, it is not clear what kind of accents Chopin had in mind, since it is difficult to assume that he would have liked to differentiate between them. According to us, it is long accents that are more likely, since a shift of the shorter sign (in bar 486) may indicate that the accent written by Chopin was longer than the one printed in FE. However, it is only a suspicion, hence both the long accents suggested in the main text and the short accents in EE may be considered equal variants. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 486
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
Just like in analogous b. 478, A features here a long accent, although its length seems to be less distinct than there. Nevertheless, it was reproduced as a long one not only in FC, but also in FE, which previously contained a short accent. To the main text we adopt a long accent, in accordance with b. 478 and with a slightly longer articulation of these octaves marked by Chopin with rhythmic values: these are minims, and not staccato crotchets, such as in, e.g. the next two bars. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 494-507
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The analysis of the slurs of A used in the ostinato figures of the R.H. bottom/middle voice leads to the conclusion that slurs other than 5-note long – the shorter slur in b. 498 and the one in b. 502 suggesting continuation at the end of the line – are most probably a result of inaccurate notation. Therefore, it is the 5-note slurs that we give in the main text as the only version. In FE (→EE) the slur in b. 502 was led to b. 503, while in EE it was also the slur in b. 504-505 that was extended in a similar manner. Taking into account a broader context – longer slurs in b. 508-515 as well as in similar b. 310-333 and 412-435 – we suggest six-note slurs as an alternative solution in all discussed bars. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , EE inaccuracies , Uncertain slur continuation |
& 
in 
