Issues : Annotations in FED
b. 55-56
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In these bars in FED one can notice vague pencilled lines; such lines may be encountered in Chopinesque pupils' copies. They may have accompanied some verbal indications of the Master, yet it is generally impossible to guess their meaning. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Source & stylistic information |
|||||||||
b. 61-62
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In the main text we take into account the fingering entered into FED, which comes from Chopin. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||
b. 180
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The indication according to which the endings of both trills are to be performed by the L.H. only was added in FED. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||
b. 521
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
According to us, the placement of the hairpin under the L.H. chords in A was forced by lack of place over them: due to the notation of the topmost notes of the chords on the top stave, the mark must have been situated in a place already occupied by the R.H. slur and rests. It is confirmed by a teaching entry in FED, which we thus consider to be the most accurate expression of Chopin's intention. The hairpin of A was reproduced inaccurately both in FC and FE. In turn, the version of GE is close enough to the notation of A to be considered equivalent. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in FC |
|||||||||
b. 521
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
FE overlooked the lowering c3 to c3. The mistake was rectified in EE and in two teaching copies, FED and FESf. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Annotations in FED , Annotations in FESf |