mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FC

b. 425-426

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

c1 tied in A (→FC, →FE→EE) & GE2 (→GE3)

c1 repeated in GE1
..

The lack of a tie to c1 in GE1 is undoubtedly an error resulting presumably from an inaccuracy in FC which has this tie only in b. 426 (on a new staff). The tie was added in GE2 (→GE3). See also b. 424-425.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 434

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Inverted long accent in A

in FC (→GE1)

in FE (→EE)

in GE2 (→GE3)

Long accent, our alternative suggestion
..

The mark in A, like in analogous b. 332, is most probably a reversed long accent, and this is the version we give in the main text. All the remaining sources reproduced it inaccurately, moving it to the right and sometimes also extending it. We suggest a common long accent as an alternative version, as written by Chopin in FC in analogous b. 332. It is likely that the change was also to apply to the discussed bar: overlooking proofreading one of the analogous places is one of Chopin's typical inaccuracies.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Omitted correction of an analogous place , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 438-439

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur to g in A (→FC,FE→EE)

Slur to bar 439 in GE1

No slur in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The slur in FC resembles the slur of A, yet it is slightly longer, which misled the engraver of GE1. The subsequent GE omitted that slur, which, from the point of view of the reviser of GE2, was a reasonable decision: among 16 bars featuring b-e1 on the 2nd crotchet and g on the third one, it is only here that FC and GE1 feature a slur, which could seem a mistake.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 462

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Long accent in A

Short accent in FC (→GE)
..

The shape of the accent in A suggests that it is a long accent. It is even more evident in similar b. 470. In FC (→GE) both marks were reproduced as common short accents. Taking into account the fact how carefully Chopin reviewed FC, the absence of corrections in those and similar places may mean that Chopin did not always consider the type of accent used to be a priority. We consider the version with a short accent featured in the principal source to be an acceptable variant.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 470

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Long accent in A

Short accent in FC (→GE) & FE (→EE)
..

The mark in A bears all the hallmarks of a long accent. In spite of that, both in FC (→GE) and FE (→EE) it was reproduced as a common short accent, which, according to us, may be considered an acceptable variant.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FC