Issues : GE revisions
|
b. 568-572
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
According to us, the missing L.H. arpeggios in b. 568, 570 and 572 are not an accident, hence in the main text we preserve this version. However, since Chopin would sometimes overlook signs in this entire section (cf., e.g. b. 557 as well as 562 and 564), we suggest an arpeggio in b. 568 as an alternative version. The version of GE2 (→GE3) with arpeggios in all the discussed bars may be applied only in accordance with the R.H. arpeggios. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 570-572
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
Chopin could have decided to stop providing chords with arpeggios with the gradual fading of music (diminuendo started already in b. 567). Therefore, in the main text we leave the notation of A and of the majority of the sources without changes. However, taking into account the fact that the missing signs could have been a result of inaccuracy, we accept the use of the variant version of GE2 (→GE3). See also b. 568-572. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 572-579
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In b. 572-573, 574-575 and 578-579 the separate L.H. slurs are an arbitrary addition of the engravers (revisers) of GE and EE. In such a layout, when the parts of both hands are written on the bottom stave, slurs over notes refer to both parts, so there is no need to double them. The five-note slurs in GE2 (→GE3) stem from the R.H. slurs (over notes), which were changed in the same way. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 573-576
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In the main text we give 6 staccato dots, written in A over the 3-crotchet motifs. The absence of the dots in FE (→EE) is probably an oversight; the engraver could have been misled by the placement of the dots in A, i.e. close to the dashes marking the range of calando. In turn, it is unclear how the missing dots in b. 574 and 576 in GE are to be explained, since one can imagine both an oversight and a revision. However, there is no doubt that the doubled marks under the notes are a revision. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 574-575
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The missing slur must be a mistake of the engraver of FE. The slur was added in EE, probably on the basis of analogy with b. 572-573 and 578-579. The shorter slur of GE2 (→GE3) is a result of a unifying revision, to which all similar motifs were subjected. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |
