![](/build/images/logo_left-en.png)
![](/build/images/pl-button.5cab5de0.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button.d3d09842.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button-en.5098433b.png)
Issues : Inaccuracies in FC
b. 629-631
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
According to us, the differences in the range of the 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
..
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
..
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
..
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 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
..
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 |