mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors of FC

b. 348-349

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in A & GE2 (→GE3)

No sign in FC (→GE1) & FE (→EE)
..

The  hairpin, very clear in A, was overlooked both in FC (→GE1) and FE (→EE). Its absence in FC may be explained by a possibility that the mark was added in A later, yet its absence in FE must be an oversight. The hairpin was added in GE2 (→GE3) most probably by analogy with the remaining three similar places.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors of FC

b. 348-349

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Tied third in A (→FE→EE) & GE

Repeated third in FC
..

The missing ties of the b-d1 third must be an oversight of the copyist, revised in GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 360

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Arpeggio sign in A (→FE→EE)

No sign in FC (→GE)
..

The missing arpeggio in FC (→GE) seems to be an oversight. However, arpeggios are also missing in analogous b. 462 and similar b. 470; therefore, it cannot be excluded that arpeggios were added in A after the completion of FC.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of FC

b. 361-364

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur to bar 364 in A (→FE→EE) & GE2 (→GE3)

Slur to end of bar 360 in FC (→GE1)
..

The missing ending of the slur in a new line must be a mistake of the copyist. The error was corrected in GE2 (→GE3), most probably on the basis of analogy with b. 463-466.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 376

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Dotted minim g in A (→FE→EE) & GE1

Minim g in FC & GE2 (→GE3)
..

The dotted g minim is the original version, left in A most probably by inadvertence. It is indicated by corrections in two previous analogous places (b. 274 and 295). Chopin's distraction in this place, as well as in the entire second appearance of this section, is proven by a few evident inaccuracies, e.g. the overlooked ties of g-e1 in b. 375-376 and f-f1 in b. 392-393. The versions of FC and GE1 are probably erroneous: the copyist was copying A with a dotted minim, of which the engraver of GE1 could not have been aware. The omission of the dot in GE2 (→GE3) is probably a revision unifying that bar with the three remaining analogous places. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Omitted correction of an analogous place , Errors of FC