mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 186-188

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Staccato dots in A (→FC→GE1) & GE3

No marks in FE (→EE) & GE2
..

According to the editors, the staccato dots over the initial quavers in b. 186 and 188 may be an original version. It is indicated by the dots cancelled in FC in the analogous b. 54 and 56, and the absence of dots in FE (→EE), both here and in analogous b. 637 and 639, which points to their deletion during the proofreading of FE. Taking this into account we omit these dots in the main text. They were also omitted in GE2, presumably in line with the analogous b. 54 and 56. GE3 restored the FC version. See also b. 193-195.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 189

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No marking in A (→FC→GE1, →FE→EE) & GE3

in GE2
..

The authentic sources are devoid of the dynamic marking, which may suggest that it is  from b. 185 that is valid. According to us, it is an oversight of the composer, since it is only the  dynamics that can comprehensively reveal the fullness of sound of this virtuoso passage, encompassing almost the entire available range on Chopin's pianos. Chopin could have also assumed that another repetition of an identical passage (the last written out with notes) for the fourth time – after b. 49, 57 & 181 – does not require a reminder of the proper dynamics. Due to the above reason, in order to avoid misunderstandings, in the main text we add . A similar addition was introduced in GE2, but removed in GE3.
A similar situation can be found in b. 640. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 189-190

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No sign in A (→FC→GE1, →FE→EE) & GE3

 in GE2
..

The  hairpin is an arbitrary addition of GE2 (removed in GE3), modelled after b. 57-58. Chopin added similar, although slightly differently placed marks in FC in b. 49-50 & 57-58, yet he did not repeat that addition for the second time (b. 181-182 & 189-190). The reviser of GE2 must have noticed the missing  mark (see the adjacent note) and repeated both indications, i.e. , after having checked analogous b. 57.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 194-196

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Staccato dot in A (→FC→GE1)

No marks in FE (→EE) & GE2

3 dots in GE3
..

As in b. 186 and 188, we regard the staccato dot in b. 194 as a remnant of an original version, presumably removed during the proofreading of FE (→EE). The mark was also omitted in GE2, while GE3 not only restored it but also arbitrarily added dots in b. 195-196.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 200-208

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No marks in A (→FE→EE)

Long accents in bars 200-201 in FC

Short accents in bars 200-201 in GE1

Short accents in GE2 (→GE3)

Long accents suggested by editors
..

Differently than in analogous b. 68-77, Chopin did not write any accents in b. 200-201 & 208-209 in A; he could have considered the marks written for the first time to be sufficient. However, while proofreading FC he added accents in b. 200-201, which confirms their validity also in this appearance of the theme. Due to the above reason, in the main text we also add a mark in b. 208 (and 209). Accents were also added in GE2 (→GE3). In GE all marks in those bars are common, short accents.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC