b. 764
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In A one can see traces of dilemmas concerning an indication – most probably related to the tempo – marking the performance manner of the next 8 bars. The deletions are quite careful, so we only managed to decipher the word sempre before the final piu mosso. The original indication could have been accellerando (with erroneous second 'l', like in a number of other works by Chopin, e.g. in the Impromptu in A Major, Op. 29, b. 25). category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A |
|||||
b. 765
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The slur written in A over the R.H. motif was deleted together with the original version of the agogic indication. A comparison with analogous b. 767 and 769 (as well as 759 and 763) proves that leaving this bar without slur is Chopin's mistake. The slur was added only in GE. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions |
|||||
b. 766-768
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
According to us, the missing staccato dots over the chords in b. 766 and 768 are a result of inattention of the copyist and the engraver of FE. The dots do appear in A, yet their perception is hampered by other elements of notation bordering on them, i.e. a deletion (b. 766) and one of the dashes marking the range of the indication più mosso (b. 768). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Errors of FC |
|||||
b. 773-775
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In GE2 (→GE3) the accents were divided between the hands: separate for the R.H. and separate for the L.H. We keep the authentic notation, which we believe to be absolutely clear. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||
b. 776
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The second note from the top of the R.H. chord is written in A slightly too low, so it could be interpreted as c2. That inaccuracy probably misled the engraver of FE, since the dot extending that note is placed – contrary to the rule – at the pitch of c2, and the small blackenings present in that edition may be traces of correction of that note. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Source & stylistic information issues: Inaccuracies in A |