b. 211
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
In GC, the mark is placed so inaccurately that seems to apply beginning from the quavers. This is how the notation was interpreted in GE. We give the definitely correct version of EE and FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GC |
||||||||
b. 211
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
In EE, is placed at the beginning of the bar, which is definitely not what Chopin intended. We also consider that occurs in FE to be an error. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , EE inaccuracies |
||||||||
b. 215
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
The way in which was read in EE is probably inaccurate. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE inaccuracies |
||||||||
b. 216-219
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
As the main text we give the definitely correct slur of EE. The slur of GC is not accurate and, when read literally, it only embraces three bars, which is what we can see in GE. Moreover, GE - just like FE - has the slur moved to the bottom and placed under the note heads. That revision, typically introduced by engravers, is not without influence on the meaning of that articulation mark. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Placement of markings , Inaccuracies in GC |
||||||||
b. 216-219
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
We give the consistent version of two out of three autograph-based sources, i.e. EE and FE. Shortening - in relation to GC – of the hairpin sign in GE was probably due to the fact that bar 219 was the first bar on a new page in that edition. category imprint: Differences between sources |