5

"La Campanella", m. 128

In MuseScore version 3.6.2 I see it being F##5 indeed, but the next note in line is also F##, but looking into how it looks like in Piano visualiser that first one must be a mistake.

m. 128 in MuseScore

m. 128 in Visualizer

1 Answer 1

6

It should be F#5; the score in the Question contains an error.

Here is the same measure in the Busoni edition of the piece. The note has a # sign in front of it.

"La Campanella", m. 128, Busoni edition
(Image source: IMSLP, Grandes études de Paganini, S.141)

And again, from the Gárdonyi edition (1971)

"La Campanella", m. 128, Gárdonyi edition
(Image source: IMSLP, Grandes études de Paganini, S.141)

6
  • 1
    Breitkopf & Härtel and Ernst Pauer both have the typo then? Feb 5, 2023 at 2:05
  • 2
    @ВалерийЗаподовников Yes. It goes all the way back to the first edition.
    – Aaron
    Feb 5, 2023 at 2:09
  • 2
    @ВалерийЗаподовников the alternative conclusion, that there are supposed to be 12 perfect octaves with one diminished octave in their midst, is not tenable.
    – phoog
    Feb 5, 2023 at 8:13
  • It's indeed a logical conclusion - what else! But could there have been a cautionary natural sign included (cancelling one of the sharps before) . Almost the whole piece is filled with accidentals, let's make it a full set...
    – Tim
    Feb 5, 2023 at 9:17
  • I would only note that in the Gárdonyi (Bärenreiter) urtext the correction doesn't even merit a comment in the Critical Notes at the back of the volume. (Where editions still differ is in the quasi cadenza, m.77.)
    – DjinTonic
    Feb 5, 2023 at 15:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.