mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE revisions

b. 30-31

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in A (literal reading→FE)

 in A (interpretation) & GE2 (→GE3)

Long accent in FC

Short accent in GE1

in EE
..

The interpretation of the notation of A is problematic here: b. 30 ends the line, and the  mark goes far beyond the bar line (in b. 31 there is already no mark). We assume that it is a one-and-a-half-bar mark, like in GE2 (→GE3). In the main text, in accordance with the analysis of the Chopinesque  or  marks in this and analog. pairs of bars (see b. 6-7), we give here an averaged, more or less one-bar hairpin of EE. According to us, all marks, regardless of their actual length, should be interpreted here as long accents.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 40

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

 in A (→FE→EE1→EE2)

  in FC (→GE) & EE3
..

The missing  in A (→FE→EE1→EE2) was probably overlooked by Chopin: the bar closes the page, which favours distraction. The mark was added in FC (→GE) and EE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , No pedal release mark , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 73

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Small crotchet with slur in A (→FE)

Acciaccatura without slur in FC (→GE1)

Small quaver with slur in EE

Acciaccatura with slur in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The only undoubtedly authentic notation is the notation of A (→FE). According to us, the use of a long grace note does not influence the performance: it is most likely that it is to be performed as a short, unaccented grace note; if we take into account the slur, we may assume that it is simply an arpeggio whose bottom note does not need to be held with hand. The notation of FC may also be authentic; Chopin could have changed therein the type of the grace note used (the missing slur is almost certainly an oversight). After adding the slur, the notation with a slashed quaver (used in GE2 (→GE3) and clear in terms of performance) may be considered a rightful alternative version. The change introduced in EE is probably arbitrary.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 100-101

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

a2 repeated in A (→FE,FC→GE)

a2 tied in EE
..

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

b. 141-173

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No marks in A (→FC→GE)

Wedge in bar 165 in FE (→EE1→EE2)

Dot & wedge in EE3

4 wedges suggested by the editors

4 dots, our alternative suggestion
..

In b. 141, 149, 165 and 173 separate staccato markings for the L.H. chords are featured only in b. 141 (dot) in EE3 and in b. 165 (wedge) in FE (→EE). Only the latter could have come from Chopin; however, such a separate addition seems to be highly unlikely. According to us, it rather points to a mistake of the engraver. In spite of lacking source basis, in order to avoid doubts, in the main text we suggest adding the markings featured in the R.H. to the notation of the L.H.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , FE revisions