Issues : FE revisions
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next »
b. 259
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
The seventh E1-D, written in two-part notation, is definitely an error of FE1 probably resulting from carelessly done proofing. We give the octave D1-D as the intended version of that edition, which results in a version analogous to bar 243. It is not entirely unlikely that the correction was only meant to be done for the D1 note alone, just like in the remaining sources. In FE2, E1 was changed to D1. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions |
|||||||||||||
b. 297
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
In FE2 the topmost note of the chord was arbitrarily changed from f1 to g1. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: FE revisions |
|||||||||||||
b. 337
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
In EE, GC and FE1 there is no augmenting a2 to category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in GC |
|||||||||||||
b. 345-347
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
A correct text of LH in these three bars is a result of revisions in FE2 and GE2. An error in b. 345 (repetition of g-f seventh) must have already been present in the autograph, proven by the consistency of EE and GC. In FE1 the correct text of bars 346-347 was printed, by mistake we suppose, in bars 345-346, which resulted in a repetition of g2-f3 seventh in bars 346-347. To keep octaves between dyads in these bars an actave sign was added in b. 347 (Chopin may have done hastily upon correction). In GE1 the seventh in b. 345 was elevated to the right pitch but on the upper note instead of two sharps there is only one printed.
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , FE revisions , Errors of GC |
|||||||||||||
b. 370-372
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we present the GC undisputable notation. No accent in b. 372 is an obvious omission in EE, and long accents in GE result form not thorough enough analysis of the GC notation (the difference in accents lenghth in bars 360-368 and 370-374 was overlooked). Double accents in FE may have come form a reviser. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE , FE revisions |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next »