b. 34-35
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
GC has at the end of bar 34, while FE has it at the beginning of that bar. In EE is on the bar line, which probably reflects Chopin's notation in [A1]; GE has the same placement. However, it is obvious that the practical possibility of execution of that dynamic indication only appears in bar 35, with the struck note g. category imprint: Source & stylistic information issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||
b. 34-35
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
In GE the minim g sharp in bar 35 is sustained with a tie from the previous bar. This is probably a revision resulting from misunderstanding of Chopin's notation, which is confirmed by the omission of an accent above that note. A similar situation occurs when the fragment is repeated in bars 376-377. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 35
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
The accent visible in GC, if it reproduces the autograph notation faithfully, should be interpreted as a long one. EE has a short accent, which is probably an oversight, while FE and GE have none, which is probably a revision (cf. the note related to bar 377). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||
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. 36
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
EE has G1 as the lower note, which is probably an error. Cf. similar bars 118 and 378. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE |