![](/build/images/logo_left-en.png)
![](/build/images/pl-button.5cab5de0.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button.d3d09842.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button-en.5098433b.png)
Issues : EE revisions
b. 30-31
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The interpretation of the notation of A is problematic here: b. 30 ends the line, and the 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
..
The missing 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
..
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
..
The tie of a category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||||||
b. 141-173
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
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 |