b. 136
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
It is not easy to find out whether the absence of in FE is simply an error of that edition or the result of inaccurate notation of the manuscript that served as its base text. In any case, it seems unlikely that Chopin could decide not to have that marking here. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||
b. 138-143
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
Bar 139 is not embraced with any slur in GC: the slur from the preceding bars reaches only to the end of bar 138 (the last bar on the manuscript page) and a new slur begins as far as bar 140. We think that, since the slur in bar 138 indicates continuation, one should assume that it was supposed to reach the minim in bar 139. GE has got a different reading of those slurs; one of them ends in bar 138 and another one begins in bar 139. In EE and FE the slur is not divided, which is probably another authentic version of the slurring, alternative to the version of GC. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in GC |
||||||
b. 139-140
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
FE erroneously has D sharp1 as the lower note in both bars. category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: Errors in FE , Terzverschreibung error |
||||||
b. 139
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
||||||
b. 139-142
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
EE does not have a single tie in the R.H. part ion those bars. This is doubtless due to oversight on the part of the engraver (or a copyist, if a copy was used as a base text for EE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE |