Slurs
|
b. 243
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
The slur is surely inaccurate in GC and most probably inaccurate in EE. Written with a bold strike of the pen, that slur had probably been present in the autograph. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GC |
||||||||
|
b. 281-283
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
The authenticity of the slur in EE seems very likely, yet one cannot entirely rule out the possibility of misinterpreting the category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 283-287
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
In GC, the slur ends in bar 283 at the end of the page. The fact that it is not continued on the next page is probably an oversight. We adopt the consistent version of EE and FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of GC |
||||||||
|
b. 288-291
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of GC |
||||||||
|
b. 291-303
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
As far as beginnings of slurs in bars 291 and 299 are concerned, we decide to give priority to the consistent notation of EE and FE, without trying to reach final conclusions about Chopin's intentions in that respect. In GC, and partly in GE, the slurs in those bars run from the 1st crotchet . GE also has arbitrarily added slurs in the L.H. part. category imprint: Differences between sources |
mark as a slur (pcf. the note to bars 280-282). This is why in our main text we suggest, by using brackets, the possibility of disregarding that slur. 
