b. 95-96
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The slur in A is inconspicuous, which explains it having been overlooked in the remaining sources. However, it was certainly intended by Chopin, since an identical indication is present in analogous b. 227-228. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Errors of FC |
|||||
b. 96
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The quaver in FE (→EE) is almost certainly a mistake: in analog. b. 228 A also features a crotchet, which practically rules out the possibility of Chopin having overlooked a quaver flag. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
|||||
b. 98
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In the main text we give the hairpin written by Chopin in FC. The mark was overlooked in GE1 and added in GE2 (→GE3), undoubtedly on the basis of FC. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC |
|||||
b. 99-100
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In the main text we give the hairpin written by Chopin in FC (→GE1). The two-bar mark in GE2 (→GE3) is a result of a standard revision adjusting hairpins (and also, e.g. slurs) to rhythmic structures, e.g. bars. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC |
|||||
b. 100-101
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The tie of a2 present in EE also between b. 100-101 was almost certainly added as a result of revision. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |