Issues : Inaccuracies in GC
|
b. 35-36
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
Differences between the sources seem to result here from inaccuracy of notation, or even from somewhat imprecise notation of Chopin himself. For that reason we propose a slur modelled after the phrasing in analogous bars 117-118. See also bars 377-381. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC |
||||||||
|
b. 45
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
The lower note of the last octave in the R.H. is written too high in GC, looking almost like f category imprint: Source & stylistic information issues: Inaccuracies in GC |
||||||||
|
b. 51-56
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
The slur of GC is evidently imprecise here – its right end reaches the end of bar 56 (in GE it ends above the 1st crotchet). This suggests that the left slur end may also be shifted to the right. For our main text we choose the concordant and unquestionable version of EE and FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GC |
||||||||
|
b. 64-67
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
When read literally, the slur in GC (→GE) begins in bar 65. This is most probably connected with the omission of the part of bar 64 in GC, so we disregard that notation. Also, in GC (→GE) the slur is broken between bars 66 and 67, while EE and FE have a single slur from bar 64 to bar 72. In the main text we retain the slur division, as it highlights the structure of the phrase (a new slur for a new eight-bar section). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GC |
||||||||
|
b. 72-74
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GC |
1.
