Issues : Errors of FC
b. 508-515
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
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
..
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
..
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
..
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
..
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 |