mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Wedges

b. 344

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Wedge in A (→FC,FE)

Dot in GE1 & EE

No mark in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The staccato mark in A, despite its smallness, is clearly prolonged (vertically). Both Fontana in FC and the engraver of FE regarded it as a wedge. GE1 and EE changed it to a dot, which can be considered acceptable, taking into account the fact that both passage E major sections feature only dots except for this place, including in analogous b. 438 & 446. GE2 (→GE3) did not include the mark, which could easily be considered an oversight if it were not for the dot in analogous  b. 446, which was also left out.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in GE , EE inaccuracies , Wedges

b. 588-620

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

2 times two & 2 times one dot in A

1 dot in FE (→EE)

4 times 2 dots in GE
..

Differently than in the two previous appearances of this theme (b. 5-37 and 137-169), in b. 588, 596, 612 and 620 there are no wedges at all in A. In turn, Chopin twice introduced separate marks for the L.H., which we consider to be determinant for the entire fragment. The use of double marking could have been related to the presence of longer, tied notes in the preceding motifs. The same unification was introduced in GE, whereas the notation of FC and FE (→EE) has to be regarded as inaccurate or erroneous.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Wedges , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 780

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Wedges in A

Staccato dots in FC (→GE1)

No marks in FE (→EE) & GE2 (→GE3)
..

In A it is unclear which kind of staccato marks (in both hands) Chopin meant. In the original, deleted version of that bar they were dots; however, in the final version the marks are clearly prolonged (vertically), particularly in the R.H. The absence of those marks in FE (→EE) is probably a result of misunderstanding A: the mark over the R.H. minim could have been considered a part of the fermata, which, in turn, could have influenced the omission of the L.H. mark. It is difficult to say what the motivation of GE2 (→GE3) to omit the dots visible in GE1 was. Perhaps they were considered contrary to the extending dots and fermatas. Chopin must have considered the extraction manner of sound to be independent from the length of its echo – regulated with pedal – and nothing indicates that he would have wanted to abandon emphasising the triumphal gesture ending the Scherzo with staccato marks.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Errors in FE , Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Wedges , Inaccuracies in FC , Inaccuracies in A