b. 585-590
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we present the GC slurring. Literal reading of the slurs extending over the bar line (bars 588-589) suggests continuation. Such is the interpretation of GE and there is an identical slur in EE. However, we believe that Chopin intended here a new slur from b. 589, similarly to what we find in FE category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GC |
||||||||
b. 589-596
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
No pedalling in these bars in EE is most probabbly a trace of the original version of this part. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
b. 591
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
The c3-e3 third in GC (→GE1) is musically correct, however, c3-g3 in EE and FE seems more justifed pianistically and thus may suggest the copyist's error. And the unjustified before the upper note of the dyed - before e3 - must certainly be an error. It was rightly corrected in GE2, perhaps when compared with FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Errors of GC |
||||||||
b. 591
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
Accents in EE and FE are distictly longer than those of the following bar. In GC (→GE) there is no difference. In the main text we take into account differences in the notation of accents, as it naturally relates to the rhythmic values of notes. In FE accents in bars 591-593 are placed below the staff. This is rather an example of a common engraving manner that placed accents, articulation signs, etc. on the side of the note heads. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Placement of markings |
||||||||
b. 593
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
Accent in EE must have been omitted. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE inaccuracies |