mUltimate Chopin

Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 312-315

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Slur in EE

GC

FE

GE
..

The slurs in EE and GC (→GE) end in b. 314, and the slur in GE is placed below the chords (at the note heads). In the main text we present the slur found in FE as undoubtedly the correct one. Compare annotation in bars 296-306.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 320

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

 in EE, FE and GE1

No marking in GC & GE2
..

Since there is  in both EE and FE, its lack in GC must be the copyist's omission. Therefore it is awkward to find  in GE1. It may well be an error or revision as the marking was later removed from GE2. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Errors of GC

b. 330

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Rhythm in EE and an interpretation of GC's script

Rhythm in FE & GE
..

The initial rhythm in RH () is confirmed in EE and also in GC (despite an obvious error - ). Traces of printing edits in FE allow us to see that the rhythm intitially was notated in this edition too but it was changed by Chopin to . We see this variant also in GE, revised most probably based on the rhythm in the earlier phrase, in bars 322 and 326

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors of GC

b. 337

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

..

In EE, GC and FE1 there is no  augmenting a2 to
a2. This obvious inaccuracy must have been already present in the autograph (such inaccurate notation is quite common in Chopin's autographs). The accidental was added in GE and FE2, which must have been done by the revisors. Compare b. 345.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 339

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

..

There is no bass clef at the end of the bar in EE, GC or FE. Given this consistency of sources we may cpnclude that this error was already present in the two autographs. Since the chords of RH in b. 340 are notated on two staves, lack of the clef does not pose any problems for the text interpetation (in EE and FE b. 340 is printed as the new line of the text with the right clef at the beginning, which minimises the consequences of this omission). The clef was supplemented in GE. We can find similar inaccuracy in b. 347.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Errors of GC