mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors of FC

b. 508-515

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

4 six-note slurs in A (contextual interpretation→FE→EE)

2 five-note slurs & 1 longer in FC

3 five-note slurs & 1 longer in GE1

4 five-note slurs in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The slur of A in b. 508 indicates the e2 minim in the next bar clearly enough for it to be considered a 6-note slur, according to us. This is how it was interpreted in FE (→EE). However, we consider a similar slur in FC to be shorter, encompassing 5 notes, since the minim starting in b. 509 is written at quite a distance from the bar line and does not seem to be related to that slur. The 5-note slur in GE corresponds to that interpretation. The 3 remaining slurs in A (b. 510-511, 512-513 and 514-515) undoubtedly encompass 6 notes, which was also correctly reproduced in GE (→EE), whereas in FC – inaccurately and with mistake (the missing slur in b. 512-513). GE1 repeated the notation of FC, adding the overlooked slur (anyway, the addition is careless, since when interpreted literally, the slur begins from the tied e2 crotchet at the beginning of the bar). GE2 (→GE3) eventually unified the slurs, so that all encompass quavers only.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 511-515

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur in bar 511 in A (→FE)

No slurs in FC (→GE1)

Slurs in bars 511-512 in EE

Slurs in bars 511-515 in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The overlooked slurs are almost certainly an inaccuracy of notation, both in A (→EE) and FC (→GE1). The slur added in b. 512 (only!) in EE is probably a mistake; just like in FE, the engraver placed slurs in the entire line; however, he did not notice that in FE the line ends a bar earlier than in EE. In the main text we complete the slurring of A; such a procedure was performed also in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Errors of A , Errors of FC

b. 532-533

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur to e3 in A & GE

No slur in FC

Slur to d3 in FE (→EE)
..

The missing slur in FC must be an oversight, corrected in GE. The shorter slur of FE (→EE) is probably also a mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 540-543

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

3 slurs in A (→FE)

No slurs in FC (→GE1→GE2)

4 slurs in EE & GE3
..

The missing slur in A (→FE) in b. 540-541 is almost certainly an oversight of Chopin. The next four slurs, written in A, illustrate the difficulties in interpreting handwritten slurs, since each of them manifests a defect (a gap or a shortening), resulting from interruption in the flow of ink. The copyist overlooked 3 out of those slurs (in b. 541-542 at the end of the line of the manuscript), which was completed in GE3. EE unified the slurs: the overlooked slur in b. 540-541 was added and the excessively short R.H. slur in b. 541-542 was prolonged.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 540-543

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Pedal up to bar 542 in A

No markings in FC (→GE1) & GE3

only in FE (→EE)

Pedal up to bar 543 in GE2
..

In the main text we give the pedalling of A, the only irrefutably authentic. The missing pedalling in FC (→GE) may be a result of an oversight of the copyist: overlooked slurs suggest distraction. It is also likely that Chopin added it in A after having prepared FC. The missing  mark seems to be an oversight of the engraver of FE. The oversight can result in a long, more or less four-bar pedal, to which this virtuoso passage in loud dynamics prompts. Such a pedalling was indicated – arbitrarily – in GE2 and removed in GE3. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , No pedal release mark , Errors of FC