Issues : Inaccuracies in A
b. 592-624
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
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
..
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
..
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 |