b. 203
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
was omitted, most probably through oversight, from EE . category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE |
|||||||||||||
b. 208-211
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
EE is the only source in which the slur corresponds with natural phrasing in those bars. In FE the slur ends on the last chord of bar 210. In GC it abruptly ends with the end of the line, which in GE was interpreted logically, yet without taking into account the context of similar places. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of GC |
|||||||||||||
b. 210
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
The version of FE, subsequently copied in GE2, seems less fortunate than the more subtle version of EE and GC (→GE1). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||||||||||
b. 210
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
It is difficult for us to tell how the version of EE came about. It cannot be entirely ruled out that it resulted from misreading the manuscript, yet it is much more probable that it was the authentic, perhaps earlier, version. For our main text we take the consistent and indubitable version of GC (→GE) and FE. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||||
b. 210
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
EE and GC (→GE) have the mark placed under the last chord, while FE has it placed after that chord. It is difficult to guess without the autograph what Chopin's authentic notation was like, and anyway even that notation could have been ambiguous. For our main text we adopt the version of the two out of three sources probably based on the autograph, i.e. EE and GC. A similar situation occurs in the analogous bar 460. category imprint: Differences between sources |