|
b. 74-75
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
For our main text we adopt the version appearing in both EE and GC (sustained c sharp2, one accent). Lack of a tie sustaining c sharp2 in FE could be easily considered an omission were it not for an additional accent at the beginning of bar 75, which in a sense confirms the need to repeat the note. Despite all that, we consider errors and misunderstandings to be the most probable source of the version of FE; that view finds confirmation when we make a comparison with analogous bars 416-417, in which FE stays in compliance with the remaining sources. The version of GE results from a routine moving of the accent to the note head side. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , Placement of markings |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 75-89
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
In bars 75, 78-79, 81-87 and 89 in GC minims in the R.H. have no augmenting dots. That inaccuracy of notation can sometimes be found in Chopin's writing, yet in this instance it is definitely the copyist's error. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Errors of GC |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 76-89
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
The sources differ here both with respect to the type of accents above the minims of the highest voice (short in EE and GC or long in FE) and to their occurrence in particular bars:
In the editors' opinion, the accent that FE has in bar 80 may have been placed there by mistake, and was meant to be placed in bar 81. Allowing for that possibility leads us to put forward the following proposal as an alternative to the main text: 11 accents in bars 76-79, 81, 83-87 and 89. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 80-81
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
Available sources fail to provide the answer to the question whether the absence of a tie for f sharp in GC (→GE) was intended or accidental. Each of the versions seems fine from the musical point of view, also when we analyze that fragment in the context of its repetition 8 bars further on in the text: both the close analogy (f sharp in bar 81 and c sharp1 in bar 89 repeated) and the repetition with a slight modification (f sharp held in bar 81, c sharp1 repeated in bar 89) produce a natural effect. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 81
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
For our main text we choose the long accent found in EE. The hairpin mark category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
in 
in 