mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 221-226

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No sign in A (→FE→EE)

 in FC (→GE1)

Longer  in GE2 (→GE3)
..

In the main text we give the almost six-bar  mark entered by Chopin into FC (→GE1). The subsequent GE slightly extended the hairpin, leading it to the end of b. 226.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 225-226

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No markings in A (→FE→EE)

One-bar pedalling in FC (→GE1) & GE3

Two-bar pedal in GE2
..

In FC (→GE1) Chopin wrote here two one-bar pedals. According to us, it is an oversight of the composer, who wrote one two-bar pedal in analogous b. 93-94, in accordance with the harmonic sense. Due to the above reason, we suggest that version in the main text. Chopin committed such a mistake also in b. 213-214, where the superfluous pedal change was yet noticed and crossed out. A two-bar pedal was introduced in GE2; however, GE3 restored the notation of FC.
A similar situation can be found in b. 676-677. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC , Alterations in CF

b. 227

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No mark in A (→FE→EE)

 in FC (literal reading→GE1)

Short accent in GE2 (→GE3)

Long accent suggested by the editors
..

Interpretation of the  mark entered by Chopin into FC is problematic. Placed under the top stave, like all other dynamic hairpins in this theme, it seems to fill almost an entire bar. It was interpreted as such in GE1; it is that literal interpretation that we assume as the text of FC. However, a comparison with analogous b. 95 allows us to recognise another interpretation: in both bars Chopin most probably meant a long accent. The flamboyantly written top arm of the hairpin starts before the minim, to which this mark undoubtedly applies; it is typical of the notation of long accents, cf., e.g. the mark in the next bar or precisely in b. 95. The bottom, shorter arm, written last, may be considered more reliable in terms of the intended length of the sign, and it is as long as the unquestionable long accent in b. 228. Due to the above reason, in the main text we reproduce the mark as a long accent, like in b. 95. GE2 (→GE3) also unified this mark with b. 95.
There is a similar situation in b. 678. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 230

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No sign in A (FE→EE)

 in FC (→GE1)

 in GE2 (→GE3)
..

In the main text we give the  hairpin entered by Chopin into FC (→GE1). In subsequent GE the mark was arbitrarily shortened and moved to above the top stave. A similar situation can be found in b. 681.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Placement of markings , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 231-234

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No signs in A (→FE→EE)

  in FC (→GE1)

  in GE2 (→GE3)
..

In the main text we give   entered by Chopin into FC (→GE1). The shift of the beginning of the  mark in GE2 (→GE3) corresponds to standard revisions adjusting hairpins to rhythmic structures, e.g. bars. The shift of the  mark seems to be an accidental arbitrary decision.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC