mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors of FC

b. 162-165

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur in A (literal reading→FE)

Slur in FC (literal reading) & GE3

Slur in GE1

Slur in GE2

No slur in EE
..

There are probably several reasons for the differences in the slurring of these bars. The slur of A (→FE) is probably inaccurate – one can see that Chopin was running out of ink; therefore, one can assume that it was supposed to reach the beginning of b. 165, like in analogous b. 30-33. This is the interpretation of the slur of A that we give in the main text. The slur of FC is clearly erroneous – the copyist reproduced only the ending of the slur of A, falling on the beginning of a new line, despite the fact that the line in A opens with b. 164, whereas in FC – with b. 163. GE1 repeated the notation of FC; however, the slur was led to the beginning of b. 164, which can be considered an interpretation of the slur of FC. GE2 regarded the slurs of FC and GE1 as erroneous and replaced them with a slur modelled after b. 30-33. GE3 generally returned to the version of FC, yet the beginning of the slur was placed in b. 162, which does not affect its meaning.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Errors of FC , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 163

composition: Op. 43, Tarantella

 
 
..

The d1 in RH by mistake is a dotted crotchet in FC3 (→FE→IE) and EE. We present the A and GE versions that raise no doubts.

In RH we add cautionary  before d1. A similar addition was introduced in EE. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 176

composition: Op. 43, Tarantella

 
 
 
 
 
..

In A and FC3 (→FE→IE) the upper note of the chord on the second beat of LH is a1. It must have been Chopin's error as proven by  on this note in A, which has no justification before a1 and it was omitted in FC3 (→FE→IE). The correct text (with f1) in EE must resulted from the editor's revision. However, it seems little probable in incorrect GE1 -    f1 may have been found already in [KF1]. Cf. next annotation.

A certainly long accent in A was copied wrongly - as a short one - in FC3 (→FE→IE) and EE but omitted in GE. Cf. bars 164-178 .

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Terzverschreibung error , Errors in the number of ledger lines , Errors of A , Errors of FC

b. 179-180

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

 in A (→FE)

No markings in FC (→GE)

   & L.H. slur in EE

   suggested by the editors
..

The missing  mark after , present in A (→FE) in b. 179, could be considered a common inaccuracy resulting from distraction caused by the transition into a new page of the manuscript. However, an identical situation is to be found in A in analogous b. 630; since both places are devoid of pedalling markings in FC (→GE), both  marks were probably added in A after FC had been finished. Therefore, Chopin could have considered the  marks to be clear enough while completing A. On the other hand, the  mark, added – probably by Chopin – in FE (→EE) at the end of b. 631, suggests that the decision was changed (or that the inaccurate notation, perhaps introduced in haste, was completed). Due to the above reason, in the main text we add a  mark also in b. 180. EE performed a far-reaching revision: apart from adding a , the slur placed by Chopin over the parts of both hands was doubled under the bottom stave. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Corrections in A , No pedal release mark , Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in A

b. 185

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in A (→FE→EE)

No sign in FC (→GE)
..

The lack of a  hairpin in FC (→GE) is most probably a copyist's oversight. Likewise in the analogous b. 636.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of FC