Slurs
|
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. 581-582
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
Just like in the previous bars, an additional slur under the L.H. part is not necessary in this layout. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||
|
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 |
||||||
|
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. 699-702
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The continuous slur in GE2 is an arbitrary, baseless revision. The original slurring was restored in GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
-a
