Issues : Errors in FE
|
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. 69-70
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
FE1 has c sharp1as the inner note of the R.H. chord. This obvious error was corrected in FE2. Cf. bar 70. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 70
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 71
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
Missing in FE is category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: Errors in FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 74-75
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
For our main text we adopt the version appearing in both EE and GC (sustained c sharp2, one accent). Lack of a tie sustaining c sharp2 in FE could be easily considered an omission were it not for an additional accent at the beginning of bar 75, which in a sense confirms the need to repeat the note. Despite all that, we consider errors and misunderstandings to be the most probable source of the version of FE; that view finds confirmation when we make a comparison with analogous bars 416-417, in which FE stays in compliance with the remaining sources. The version of GE results from a routine moving of the accent to the note head side. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , Placement of markings |
before the R.H. minim. This obvious error was corrected in 
