mUltimate Chopin

Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 217

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

..

FE1 does not have  for the topmost note of the chord in the L.H. That obvious omission was corrected in FE2.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Errors in FE

b. 223

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

 in FE

No mark in EE & GC (→GE)
..

The fact that  is missing both from EE and from GC (→GE) suggests that the asterisk was already omitted in the autograph. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , Errors of GC

b. 224-227

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

End of the slur in EE & GC (→GE)

FE
..

The consistency of the slurring in EE and GC (→GE) suggests that the slur notation was  imprecise in the autograph. For our main text we take the slur of FE as undoubtedly correct.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Placement of markings , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 226

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

 in EE and GC

FE

GE
..

For our main text we take the  mark placed mid-bar, according to EE and GC, being the two out of three sources that could have been based on the autograph. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 228-229

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

 in EE & GC (→GE)

 in FE
..

As there is no reason for the pedalling in this passage to differ from that in analogous bars 183-185, we give precedence to the version of EE and GC (→GE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE