mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 294-295

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No slur in A (→FC) & GE2 (→GE3)

Slur in FE (→EE) & GE1
..

The slur combining e with d in FE (→EE) is a result of a mistake of the engraver of FE, who misinterpreted the tie of g. The same slur in GE1 is probably a result of a standard completion of the allegedly missing slurs. The erroneous slur was omitted in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 295

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Minim g in A & GE

Dotted minim g in FC & FE (→EE)
..

In the main text we keep the notation of A, which is a result of Chopin's reflection: the version featuring the dotted minim is the original one, crossed out in this and the previous analogous place (b. 274). The presence of that removed version both in FC and FE (→EE) may be puzzling, yet it is probably a result of the copyist's and the engraver's inattention. The missing dot in GE could be explained in the same way.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in FE , Corrections in A , Errors in GE , Errors of FC

b. 295-297

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

R.H. slur from a in A (→FC→GE1, →FE→EE)

Slurs from b & d in GE2 (→GE3)

Slurs from a & c suggested by the editors
..

According to us, the majority of the sources led the slur up to b. 297 in order to clearly mark the fragment of A, heavily crossed out. A comparison with analogous b. 274, 376 & 397 proves that Chopin considered a slur reaching b. 296 to be enough, and this is the one we give in the main text. It was also the crossings-out that were probably the reason for the missing slur in the L.H., which we hence add. The differently led slurs of GE2 (→GE3), which repeated the erroneous slurs of GE1 from b. 274-275, cannot be justified, in terms of both sources and music.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 295-297

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur to e1 in A (→FC→GE1, →FE→EE)

Slur to bar 297 in GE2 (→GE3)

Slur to end of bar 295 suggested by the editors
..

The range of the top phrase mark in A is not entirely certain: its ending falls between e1 and a. In accordance with the majority of the remaining sources, we assume that it was to be e1. However, a comparison with the remaining analogous places prompts us to lead the phrase mark slightly further (the tenuto-slur emphasising the hold of e1).  The longer phrase mark of GE2 (→GE3) is modelled after the phrase mark in b. 274-276.

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

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions

b. 298

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

In some of the editions, the whole-bar rest was specified with the digit 1 – over each of the staves in GE1 and EE, between the staves in GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions