mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE revisions

b. 478-479

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

e3 in A (→FE,FC→GE1)

e3 with  in GE2 (→GE3) & FESf

e3 in EE1

e3 & e3 in EE2 (→EE3)
..

In the main text we add a cautionary  before the 2nd quaver in b. 478 (e3), since there are no doubts that the harmonic sequence on which the passages in b. 476-483 are based is to be the same as the one in b. 484-491 (including the semitone transposition). The absence of that  misled the engraver of EE who added a  here, changing the 2nd and 5th quavers from e3 to e3. That erroneous change was rectified in EE2 (→EE3), yet only partially, by adding a  restoring e3 on the 5th quaver. In GE2 (→GE3) a cautionary  was added not only in the discussed place, but also before e2 in the next bar. A natural before the 2nd quaver was also added in FESf.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , GE revisions , Annotations in FESf

b. 492-493

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Long accents in A (→FC,FE)

Short accents in GE & EE
..

In A there is a clear difference between the long accents in the R.H. and the short accent on A in b. 493. It is noticeable in FC, yet it may easily be considered insignificant, related to natural imperfection of handwriting, which explains the unification of the marks in GE. It is even more difficult to assess the marks in FE; in the entire section, which begins here, the differences between the accents, although visible, do not seem to signalise a different meaning. In the discussed bars we assume that these are long accents.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE

b. 493

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

In A (→FC→GE1, →FE→EE1) there is no accidental before the last crotchet in the R.H. It must be a mistake, cf., e.g. analogous b. 497. Oversight of an accidental necessary for writing a note belonging to a currently valid key is one of Chopin's most frequent mistakes. A natural was added only just in GE2 (→GE3) and EE2 (→EE3); it was also added in FESf. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE , Annotations in FESf

b. 494

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

In A (→FE,FC→GE1) there is no  lowering g2 to g2 and no  lowering e2 to e2.  A flat was added already in EE1, whereas it is only just EE2 (→EE3) and GE2 (→GE3) that include the correct text.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 495-515

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

11 long accents in A (contextual interpretation)

9 short accents in FC (→GE1)

8 long accents & 3 short ones in FE

10 short accents & 1 long one in EE

11 short accents in GE2 (→GE3)
..

In the entire fragment (until b. 515) the accents under the R.H. bottom voice minims are of different length; they are also ambiguous in terms of their shape. As a result, determining whether Chopin meant a long or a short accent in a given bar is very problematic. We assume that they are long accents, since:

  • these minims are a part of a motif repeated as ostinato, hence there is no reason to differentiate between them;
  • even the shortest ones (b. 499, 507 and 515) are clearly longer than all undoubtedly short accents in the L.H. (b. 493-494, 496-502 and 508-515).

Similarly to b. 311-333, the remaining sources do not contain traces of Chopinesque intervention in this regard. The differences in the size of the marks in FC are minimal, so we assume – in accordance with GE – that they are short accents. Fontana overlooked the marks in b. 505 and 507, which was corrected in GE2 (→GE3). In FE we determine the length of the accents by comparing them with the undoubtedly short accents in the L.H. It results in short accents only in b. 501, 503 and 505. It is uncertain whether those differences were intended by the engraver, since the use of longer or shorter marks is neither musically consistent nor corresponding to the differences in A. In EE all accents are short except for b. 515, where the mark is clearly bigger.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , GE revisions , Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in FC