mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 162-163

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Long accent in A (→FC→GE1)

in FE (→EE)

in GE2 (→GE3)
..

In accordance with the analysis of the Chopinesque  or  marks in this and analog. pairs of bars (see b. 6-7), in the main text we give the averaged, more or less one-bar hairpin of FE (→EE). According to us, all marks, regardless of their length, are supposed to be long accents.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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

b. 193

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in A

in FC

in FE & GE

in EE
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies

b. 294-295

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

g-e1 tied in A (→FC) & GE2 (→GE3)

g repeated in FE (→EE)

e1 repeated in GE1
..

The missing tie of g in FE (→EE) and the one of e1 in GE1 must be mistakes of the engravers: in both cases it was a motivic slur in the next lower voice (see the notes below) that was printed instead of a tie. In FE it is also the notation of the tie of e1 that is inaccurate: the correct tie is present only in b. 294, which ends the line. GE2 (→GE3) added the tie that had been overlooked in GE1.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 310-333

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

6 longer, 6 shorter slurs in A

2 longer, 9 shorter slurs in FC

10 longer slurs in FE

3 longer, 9 shorter slurs in GE1

9 longer slurs in EE

12 shorter slurs in GE2 (→GE3)

12 longer slurs suggested by the editors
..

The slurs over the motifs of the bottom voice in A are of different length: they encompass the quavers only or reach the minim in the next bar. On many occasions, it is difficult or even impossible to say conclusively which of the slurs Chopin meant. Since there is no visible reason for those actually identical motifs to have different slurs, in the main text we unify them, assuming the six-note slurs to be more frequent in A. None of the remaining sources reproduced Chopin's notation accurately; the differences in FC and FE are exclusively of an accidental nature, whereas GE1, EE and GE2 (→GE3) also introduced arbitrary changes, ordering the notation.

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

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 340-341

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in A (→FC→GE1)

in FC (→GE1)

in FE

in EE

in GE2 (→GE3)
..

In the main text we suggest that the range of the  mark be compliant with Chopin's entries in all three analogous places (b. 348-349, 442-443, 450-451), since we are convinced that the mark having been shifted in this place is a standard inaccuracy of notation. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies