b. 621
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
In EE the first two quavers - D-E - judging by the identical notation of the other sources are erroneously written. It needs to be said as well that there is an error in the notation of the second quaver of the bar in GC that may mislead a reader as it is E written out with a ledger line. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE , Errors of GC |
||||||
b. 621
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||
b. 621-622
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
The slur in EE erroneously begins only in b. 624. We may suspect that the omission of the slur's beginning until the end of the line mast have occured already in the manuscript for the edition. Also the GC slur may well be inaccurate, so we assume based on GE that the slur is too long and should apply to where the RH comes in. For the main text we adopt the FE slur which seems to be musically most natural. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE , Inaccuracies in GC |
||||||
b. 623-624
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||
b. 627-629
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
For the main text we adopt the scope of hairpins based on GC (→GE). In EE they are a little shorter, which may be treated as a parallel, slightly different version. A clearly earlier ending of the mark in FE seems less accurate, and moreover, according to an out-of-date convention the continuation of crescendo in b. 627, starting a new line, was marked with new hairpins. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Hairpins denoting continuation |