![](/build/images/logo_left-en.png)
![](/build/images/pl-button.5cab5de0.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button.d3d09842.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button-en.5098433b.png)
Issues : EE inaccuracies
b. 211
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
In EE, category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||
b. 215
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
The way in which category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||
b. 224-227
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
The consistency of the slurring in EE and GC (→GE) suggests that the slur notation was imprecise in the autograph. For our main text we take the slur of FE as undoubtedly correct. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Placement of markings , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC |
|||||||||
b. 231-235
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
Both versions of the slurring found in the sources give rise to certain doubts. The slurs of EE and GC are inconsistent with the slurring in analogous bars 187 and – despite the differences – 481. Also the continuous slur of FE, more justified from the musical point of view, may be a simplified (inaccurate) rendition of the manuscript, as is testified by the slur in GE, which is after all based on GC. As our main text we adopt the slur of FE, but taking into account all the possible notation inaccuracies and misunderstandings, we also propose slurring consistent with the version of bar 187. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC |
|||||||||
b. 239-240
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
In EE and GC (→GE) the lower note of the L.H. octave, D category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC , Abbreviated octaves' notation |