Issues : Errors in FE
|
b. 655
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The versions of FE and EE1 must be erroneous (in addition, FE do not contain a category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Terzverschreibung error , Errors repeated in EE |
||||||||
|
b. 656-657
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 678-679
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The discussed bars are an exact repetition of b. 227-228. The slur written there in A over the b category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 684
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The version of FE must be a result of an overlooked note by the engraver, who was less careful this time (analogous b. 233 was reproduced correctly in FE, on the basis of the same notation of A). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 686
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The version of FE is almost certainly erroneous, in spite of the fact that it was proofread; originally, in FE this bar was identical to the next one, yet it was only the 3rd note that was corrected, perhaps due to misunderstanding Chopin's proof entry or due to an incomplete implementation of the proofreading. EE repeated the version of FE from before proofreading, which, unless it is an extraordinary coincidence, means that it was a change introduced in the last phase of proofreading. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE , Partial corrections |
1 & d
before the 3rd crotchet), since a simple scheme, on which this harmonic accompaniment is based, would be distorted, without a sonic explanation. 
