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. 598-600

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

..

In FE the dynamic hairpin is placed above the RH part, which  may be a practical solution applied by the engraver. The  mark is split into two parts dues to the barline of b. 599.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Hairpins denoting continuation

b. 600-603

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Slur in EE, simplest interpretation

Slurs in GC

Slurs in FE, simplest interpretation

Possible interpretation of FE

GE
..

Those obvious inaccuracies in the three editons obscure deciphering Chopin's intentions regarding slurring of the part. In the main text we present the slurs notated without clear faults in  GC. They represent possible articulationn of the chords progression. While interpreting the slur in # EE we assume that the error applies to b. 600 (half of the line spanning bars 598-600 has no slurs in EE). We retain the slurs in GE as despite the inaccurate copy of the basis (GC) they are formally correct. The FE slurs may be interpreted in a variety of ways, among others as distorted GC slurs or as the aforementioned.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies

b. 601-604

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Beginning of the slur in EE

GC (→GE)

No slur in FE
..

For the main text we adopt the GC (→GE) slur as most probably directly based on the autograph. It cannot be ruled out however that the earlier beginning of the slur in EE is the original Chopin's intention. No slur in FE is just one of numerous proofs of Chopin's less meticulous edit of the part in [A2] (cf. annotation in b. 373.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 601

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Long accent in EE, contextual interpretation of GC (→GE) & FE

GC (→GE2), literal reading

FE, literal reading

No sign in GE1
..

Regradless of the differences in length and placement, the marks in all the sources (except GE1, where there is no mark) clearly fall on the minim on the second beat of the bar, which allows for seeing a long accent here - more or less precisely copied.

category imprint: Interpretations within context

issues: Long accents

b. 602-603

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

 in EE

GC (→GE2)

No sign in FE & GE1
..

For the main text we adopt the musically indisputable GC hairpins  (→GE2, omitted in GE1). The corresponding mark in EE seems to be placed inaccurately - crescendo on the the resounding chord is in fact impossible to execute on the grand piano. No sign in FE may indicate a less carerful edition of execution markings in [A2] (cf. annotation to b. 373)

 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , EE inaccuracies