mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Pitch
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Pitch

b. 545

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

In the main text we add cautionary flats before the A-a octave.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 550

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

C in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)

C in FESf
..

The flats added in FESf could not have been written by Chopin, since the copy of FESf comes from an impression released sometime after his death. According to us, the variant entered into FESf may be, however, authentic: the pupil could have written down a change indicated by Chopin in a copy he purchased later.
A stylistic analysis leads to the conclusion that Chopin could definitely have suggested such a variant, since he would willingly use a Neapolitan chord; moreover, in this specific place, the C major chord is an exact equivalent of the G major chord from b. 546, so the version of the progression in FESf sounds as naturally as the version of the remaining sources. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FESf

b. 568-572

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No signs in A (→FC→GE1, →FE→EE)

3 arpeggio signs in GE2 (→GE3)

1 arpeggio sign, our alternative suggestion
..

According to us, the missing L.H. arpeggios in b. 568, 570 and 572 are not an accident, hence in the main text we preserve this version. However, since Chopin would sometimes overlook signs in this entire section (cf., e.g. b. 557 as well as 562 and 564), we suggest an arpeggio in b. 568 as an alternative version. The version of GE2 (→GE3) with arpeggios in all the discussed bars may be applied only in accordance with the R.H. arpeggios.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 572-579

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No slurs under L.H. in A (→FC,FE)

Six-note slurs in GE1 & EE

Five-note slurs in GE2 (→GE3)
..

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. 588

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

In EE1 the bottom note of the L.H. crotchet is an erroneous A1. The mistake was initially also in FE, in which, however, it was corrected during the proofreading, perhaps by Chopin's orders. The mistake was also rectified in EE2 (→EE3).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors repeated in EE