mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in A

b. 592-624

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

2 dots in A

Dot in bar 600 in FE (→EE) & GE1

4 dots in GE2 (→GE3)
..

Among the R.H. chords in b. 592, 600, 616 and 624, it is only the one in b. 600 that is provided with an unequivocal staccato mark (dot) in A (and in the remaining sources). B. 592 could also contain a dot; however, the potential mark is quite far from the chord and blends with the end of the slur; it was repeated neither in FC nor in FE. The missing marks are most probably an inaccuracy, hence in the main text we suggest dots in all four places. Such an addition was also introduced in GE2 (→GE3). 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FC , Inaccuracies in A

b. 730-731

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

 on 3rd beat in A (literal reading→FC→GE1, →FE→EE) & GE3

 on 2nd beat in A (contextual interpretation) & GE2
..

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  marks begin under the 1st R.H. quaver but they end already after the last L.H. crotchet, which the majority of the sources reproduced as a  mark on the 3rd beat of the bar. Such a pedalling unnecessarily – contrary to cresc. – impoverishes the sound, since, differently than in the previous bars, the first two quavers of each of the passages do not form the chord built with pedal. Therefore, in the main text we keep in these bars the pedalling model from the previous passages, which is pianistically natural and compliant with the notation of A. Such a solution was adopted in GE2, whereas GE3 restored the notation of FC (→GE1). 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC , Inaccuracies in A

b. 776

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

The second note from the top of the R.H. chord is written in A slightly too low, so it could be interpreted as c2. That inaccuracy probably misled the engraver of FE, since the dot extending that note is placed – contrary to the rule – at the pitch of c2, and the small blackenings present in that edition may be traces of correction of that note. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Source & stylistic information

issues: Inaccuracies in A

b. 780

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Wedges in A

Staccato dots in FC (→GE1)

No marks in FE (→EE) & GE2 (→GE3)
..

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