mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FC

b. 629-631

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in A

Shorter  in FC (→GE)

Longer  in FE (→EE)
..

According to us, the differences in the range of the  hairpin are accidental inaccuracies in the reproduction of the notation of A. In the main text we preserve the mark inserted by Chopin's hand, although its starting point cannot be clearly related to the other elements of notation, which was probably the reason for discrepancies in the remaining sources.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 718-719

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur to bar 719 in A (→FE→EE)

Slur to end of bar 718 in FC (→GE)
..

The ending of the slur of A may seem inaccurate, hence the interpretation of that slur in FC (→GE) may be correct. An argument for such an interpretation could be a much shorter slur of A in an identical phrase 4 bars later. However, the correctness of the slur of A is supported by the clear slurs in the analogous situations in b. 758-759 and 762-763, hence in the main text we keep the notation of A.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 726

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Pedal change on 2nd beat in A (→FE→EE)

Pedal change on 1st beat in FC (→GE)
..

An earlier pedal change in FC (→GE) is a result of inaccuracy of the copyist, who probably considered the notation of A to be inaccurate.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FC

b. 730-731

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

 on 3rd beat in A (literal reading→FC→GE1, →FE→EE) & GE3

 on 2nd beat in A (contextual interpretation) & GE2
..

In A the R.H. quavers in these bars are written later than the L.H. part notation indicates, which is one of the reasons hampering the interpretation of the pedalling markings. The  marks begin under the 1st R.H. quaver but they end already after the last L.H. crotchet, which the majority of the sources reproduced as a  mark on the 3rd beat of the bar. Such a pedalling unnecessarily – contrary to cresc. – impoverishes the sound, since, differently than in the previous bars, the first two quavers of each of the passages do not form the chord built with pedal. Therefore, in the main text we keep in these bars the pedalling model from the previous passages, which is pianistically natural and compliant with the notation of A. Such a solution was adopted in GE2, whereas GE3 restored the notation of FC (→GE1). 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 780

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Wedges in A

Staccato dots in FC (→GE1)

No marks in FE (→EE) & GE2 (→GE3)
..

In A it is unclear which kind of staccato marks (in both hands) Chopin meant. In the original, deleted version of that bar they were dots; however, in the final version the marks are clearly prolonged (vertically), particularly in the R.H. The absence of those marks in FE (→EE) is probably a result of misunderstanding A: the mark over the R.H. minim could have been considered a part of the fermata, which, in turn, could have influenced the omission of the L.H. mark. It is difficult to say what the motivation of GE2 (→GE3) to omit the dots visible in GE1 was. Perhaps they were considered contrary to the extending dots and fermatas. Chopin must have considered the extraction manner of sound to be independent from the length of its echo – regulated with pedal – and nothing indicates that he would have wanted to abandon emphasising the triumphal gesture ending the Scherzo with staccato marks.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Errors in FE , Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Wedges , Inaccuracies in FC , Inaccuracies in A