Issues : EE revisions
|
b. 561-566
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The slurs of EE added in b. 561-562 and 565-566 are contrary to Chopin's intention. It is proven by the same type of slurs having been crossed out in A in the first of those places. According to us, it is even uncertain whether the slurs were an actual original concept of articulation of those motifs, since Chopin could have erroneously marked one similar place too many while adding slurs on that page of A. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: EE revisions , Corrections in A , Deletions in A |
||||||
|
b. 572-579
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In b. 572-573, 574-575 and 578-579 the separate L.H. slurs are an arbitrary addition of the engravers (revisers) of GE and EE. In such a layout, when the parts of both hands are written on the bottom stave, slurs over notes refer to both parts, so there is no need to double them. The five-note slurs in GE2 (→GE3) stem from the R.H. slurs (over notes), which were changed in the same way. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 574-575
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The missing slur must be a mistake of the engraver of FE. The slur was added in EE, probably on the basis of analogy with b. 572-573 and 578-579. The shorter slur of GE2 (→GE3) is a result of a unifying revision, to which all similar motifs were subjected. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 588
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In EE1 the bottom note of the L.H. crotchet is an erroneous A category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors repeated in EE |
||||||
|
b. 631-632
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In both manuscripts the slur clearly reaches b. 632, although due to the absence of text in this bar – b. 632 opens a section written in an abbreviated manner as repetition of b. 181-244 – it may be considered an inaccuracy. It was regarded as such both in FE and GE. In turn, EE contain the correct slur, probably under the influence of b. 180-181. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE |
1. The mistake was initially also in 
