|
b. 715-716
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The continuous slur in FE (→EE) stems from the corrections in A, as a result of which the slur from b. 715, leading to the final, crossed-out fragment of the line, seems to suggest continuation. The situation misled also the copyist, who led that slur in FC to the next bar (which does not take place in A). Consequently, the slurs converged on the grace note, which the engraver of GE1 interpreted as one slur. This unanimity of the editors is startling if we take into account the fact that in the manuscripts the slur that starts in b. 715 is led under the notes, whereas the next one – over the notes, and nothing suggests that they should be merged. In the main text in b. 715 we give a literal interpretation of the slur of A, which does not reach the next bar, whereas in b. 716 – the slur of FC, compliant with the more accurate, according to us, slur of the manuscripts in b. 720. The issue of range of the slur over b. 716 – see b. 718-719. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , Deletions in A |
|||||||||
|
b. 718-719
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
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. 722-723
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The slur of A is most probably unfinished due to ink flow problems; however, it is unclear where it should end. Two possibilities are involved: the beginning of b. 723, which is supported by the slurs in the analogous situations in b. 718-719, 758-759 and 762-763, or the end of b. 722, as it was interpreted by the copyist and which is indicated by the bend of the right-hand ending of the slur (or its visible, written part). In the main text we adopt the former, yet we consider the latter to be equivalent. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , FE revisions , Fontana's revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 722-723
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The L.H. slur in A encompasses b. 723 only, hence it is compliant with the R.H. slur yet shorter than the slurs over the analogous motifs in b. 718-719, 758-759 and 762-763. It gives rise to the suspicion that the notation is inaccurate, hence the version of GE2 (→GE3) may be considered an acceptable variant. According to us, performing the D category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 725-731
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The missing dashes marking the range of cresc. are an inaccuracy of FE (→EE) and GE1. Omission of such dashes is a quite frequent discretion of Chopinesque first editions. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
-E crotchets non legato may be regarded as a positive diversification.
