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
Shorthand & other
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Shorthand & other

b. 307-309

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Small notes in A (→FC→GE)

Regular font in FE (→EE)
..

The notation in normal font notes is a result of the engraver of FE (→EE) having misunderstood A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 309

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

In A one can see that the last two crotchets in the bar were initially provided with stems pointing down. The change emphasised their affiliation to the top voice, despite the fact that the bottom one had not yet begun. It was only after that correction that Chopin changed the slurring concept.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A

b. 310-311

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

In both bars the L.H. part was eventually crossed out after a series of alterations and rewritten on an adjacent stave. In the deleted version, most probably identical with the final one in terms of pitch, the following are noteworthy:

  • Direction of the top voice crotchet stems. They are directed downwards, which means that Chopin opted for strictly two-part notation only when preparing the Scherzo for print. The starting point was the homogeneous movement of the crotchets while holding some notes to achieve a fuller sound ('harmonic legato'). See also b. 326-329.
  • Whole-bar slurs, not included in the final version.
  • A removed mark over the c minim in b. 310, independent from the deletion of the entire bars, so probably earlier. It was probably a rest, which would suggest that its absence in the final version could have been intentional. However, Chopin could have added a rest, since he was considering to change to a strictly two-part notation; then he realised that he would have to introduce more corrections and removed the rest with the intention of rewriting the whole L.H. part from scratch.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A

b. 365

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

In all editions except for GE2 the whole-bar rest was specified with the digit 1, one (FE and GE3) or two (GE1 and EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , FE revisions

b. 383-386

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Small notes in A (→FC→GE)

Regular font in FE (→EE)
..

Notation with normal font notes is a result of a misunderstanding of A by the engraver of FE (→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE