mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 6-7

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Long accent in A (→FC)

in FE (→EE)

Short accent in GE1

in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The analysis of the  or  markings, written by Chopin in A in these and analogous bars, leads to the conclusion that, despite significant differences in length (from a long accent to a two-bar hairpin), all of them most probably denote long accents. Due to that reason, in the main text we decided to unify them; we adopted a compromise  marking, which is more or less one-bar long. In the remaining sources Chopin did not interfere with the shape of those markings.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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

b. 8

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

In GE1 the middle note of the 2nd chord in the R.H. is a d3 instead of c3. A comparison with the other sources and analogous bars proves that it is a mistake, corrected in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 9-35

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No L.H. slurs in A (→FC,FE) & GE2 (→GE3)

L.H. slurs in GE1 & EE
..

The L.H. slurs in b. 9-11, 25-27 and 33-35 are an arbitrary addition of the revision of GE1 and EE. In GE and EE, such additions were common also in other compositions, cf., e.g. the Concerto in F minor, Op. 21, 2nd mov., b. 66-69, 3rd mov., b. 145-160 or the Scherzo in C minor, Op. 39, b. 1-12. In EE an additional incentive to perform additions could have been the FE slurs in b. 1-3.   

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 9-33

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

The entire second line of A is missing the octave signs – there is no ending of the sign in bar 9 and an entire one is missing in b. 14-17. There is a similar case in b. 31-33, in which the transition into a new line provoked a mistake in the form of an unfinished octave sign, which began in bar 30. Fontana noticed and corrected only the latter, yet in FC an octave sign was added in pencil also in b. 14-17, probably by the engraver of GE1 (we do not take into account that addition in the transcription of FC, since it belongs rather to GE1). In the editions all mistakes were corrected, in FE perhaps by Chopin's orders, who proofread that edition.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Foreign hand additions in manuscripts , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE , Fontana's revisions

b. 9-41

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

3 wedges in A

3 dots in FC

3 wedges & dot in FE (→EE)

4 dots in GE, our alternative suggestion

4 wedges suggested by the editors
..

It is unclear whether the staccato markings with which Chopin provided the R.H. chords in b. 9, 17 and 33 (the missing marking in bar 41 must be an oversight, since it is the first bar on a new page of A) should be interpreted as wedges or dots. The ambiguity is confirmed by the sources based directly on A: the copyist interpreted those markings as dots, whereas the engraver of FE – as wedges. According to us, there are more arguments in favour of wedges, which we thereby suggest in the main text. The dot added in FE in bar 41 may come from Chopin, yet in this case it is also unclear whether the engraver interpreted Chopin's proof entry correctly. An identical addition introduced in GE cannot be authentic.

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

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Wedges , Inaccuracies in A