mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in GE

b. 246-249

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur in A (→FC→GE1, →FE→EE) and GE3

Shorter slur in GE2
..

The shorter slur in GE2 is most probably a mistake by the engraver. It was corrected in GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 250-256

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Accents &  in A

& accent in FC (→GE1)

Different accents in FE

Different R.H. & L.H. accents in EE

Short accents in GE2 (→GE3)

Long accents, our alternative suggestion
..

Despite significant differences in the length of the marks in b. 250, 252, 254 & 256 visible in A, we consider all of them to be accents. The mark in b. 250 in itself could be regarded as a long accent; however, in the context of two subsequent ones, we interpret it as a short accent. Due to the reasons discussed in analogous b. 118-124, in the main text we give a notation unified with four short accents; such a solution was also applied in GE2 (→GE3). The two missing marks in FC (→GE1) are most probably an oversight, while the changes introduced in EE, with differentiated accents for both hands and vertical accents, the latter being typical of that edition – a revision.   

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 310-333

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

6 longer, 6 shorter slurs in A

2 longer, 9 shorter slurs in FC

10 longer slurs in FE

3 longer, 9 shorter slurs in GE1

9 longer slurs in EE

12 shorter slurs in GE2 (→GE3)

12 longer slurs suggested by the editors
..

The slurs over the motifs of the bottom voice in A are of different length: they encompass the quavers only or reach the minim in the next bar. On many occasions, it is difficult or even impossible to say conclusively which of the slurs Chopin meant. Since there is no visible reason for those actually identical motifs to have different slurs, in the main text we unify them, assuming the six-note slurs to be more frequent in A. None of the remaining sources reproduced Chopin's notation accurately; the differences in FC and FE are exclusively of an accidental nature, whereas GE1, EE and GE2 (→GE3) also introduced arbitrary changes, ordering the notation.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 344

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Wedge in A (→FC,FE)

Dot in GE1 & EE

No mark in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The staccato mark in A, despite its smallness, is clearly prolonged (vertically). Both Fontana in FC and the engraver of FE regarded it as a wedge. GE1 and EE changed it to a dot, which can be considered acceptable, taking into account the fact that both passage E major sections feature only dots except for this place, including in analogous b. 438 & 446. GE2 (→GE3) did not include the mark, which could easily be considered an oversight if it were not for the dot in analogous  b. 446, which was also left out.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in GE , EE inaccuracies , Wedges

b. 351

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

on 2nd beat in A (→FE→EE)

mid-bar in FC

 at end of bar in GE
..

In the main text we give the  mark in the middle of the bar, as written by Chopin in FC (it is one of the possible interpretations of the notation of A). In turn, the version of GE may be considered an interpretation of the notation of FC, perhaps accurate, since  in FC is close to the next  (cf. also the pedalling of FC 4 bars later). 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in A , Authentic corrections of FC