mUltimate Chopin

Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE revisions

b. 540-565

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

in EE

#in GC (→GE)

in FE
..

No continuation of the dashed line determining the scope of cresc. ​on the new page in FE (from b. 542) must be an error. The replacemnent of a typical abbreviation with a full word split into syllables is a characteristic revison of EE. In the main text we present the GC (→GE) version.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE

b. 606-620

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

up to bar 615 in EE (simplest interpretation)

up to bar 620, contextual interpretation of EE

up to bar 612 in GC (→GE)

No marking in FE
..

For the main text we adopt cresc. - - - based on GC (→GE). In EE it is divided into syllables (it is the common manner of EE) and extends further only to abruptly end without the last syllable "do" - in b. 615, which is the last on the page. The placement of the first two syllables in bars 606 i 613 suggests that the whole indication should extend as far as b. 620. In FE there is no marking at all, which is most probably Chopin's omission while writing hastily [A2] (cf. annotation to b. 373) 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE

b. 607-611

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Short accents in EE

Long accents in FE, probable reading of GC

Possible short accents in GC (→GE)
..

In bars 607 and 611 in EE, there are (short) accents both in the LH and RH parts. It is uncertain that such a version is authentic (cf. 606-620). The accents in GC (marked in bars 575 and 579) may be interpreted both as long or short. In GE they were read as short ones. For the main text we adopt the long accents of FE. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions