mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors of FC

b. 162-165

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur in A (literal reading→FE)

Slur in FC (literal reading) & GE3

Slur in GE1

Slur in GE2

No slur in EE
..

There are probably several reasons for the differences in the slurring of these bars. The slur of A (→FE) is probably inaccurate – one can see that Chopin was running out of ink; therefore, one can assume that it was supposed to reach the beginning of b. 165, like in analogous b. 30-33. This is the interpretation of the slur of A that we give in the main text. The slur of FC is clearly erroneous – the copyist reproduced only the ending of the slur of A, falling on the beginning of a new line, despite the fact that the line in A opens with b. 164, whereas in FC – with b. 163. GE1 repeated the notation of FC; however, the slur was led to the beginning of b. 164, which can be considered an interpretation of the slur of FC. GE2 regarded the slurs of FC and GE1 as erroneous and replaced them with a slur modelled after b. 30-33. GE3 generally returned to the version of FC, yet the beginning of the slur was placed in b. 162, which does not affect its meaning.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Errors of FC , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 179-180

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

 in A (→FE)

No markings in FC (→GE)

   & L.H. slur in EE

   suggested by the editors
..

The missing  mark after , present in A (→FE) in b. 179, could be considered a common inaccuracy resulting from distraction caused by the transition into a new page of the manuscript. However, an identical situation is to be found in A in analogous b. 630; since both places are devoid of pedalling markings in FC (→GE), both  marks were probably added in A after FC had been finished. Therefore, Chopin could have considered the  marks to be clear enough while completing A. On the other hand, the  mark, added – probably by Chopin – in FE (→EE) at the end of b. 631, suggests that the decision was changed (or that the inaccurate notation, perhaps introduced in haste, was completed). Due to the above reason, in the main text we add a  mark also in b. 180. EE performed a far-reaching revision: apart from adding a , the slur placed by Chopin over the parts of both hands was doubled under the bottom stave. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Corrections in A , No pedal release mark , Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in A

b. 185

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in A (→FE→EE)

No sign in FC (→GE)
..

The lack of a  hairpin in FC (→GE) is most probably a copyist's oversight. Likewise in the analogous b. 636.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of FC

b. 206

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

 without  in A (→FE→EE) & GE2 (→GE3)

No  in FC (→GE1)

with [] suggested by the editors
..

The missing  in FC (→GE1) could be an oversight of the copyist, corrected in GE2 (→GE3), probably on the basis of analogy with b. 74. The missing  over the mordent must be Chopin's inaccuracy: see b. 74.
A similar situation is to be found in b. 657.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Last key signature sign , Errors of FC

b. 227-228

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur in A

No slur in FC (→GE) & FE (→EE)
..

Like in b. 95-96, none of the secondary sources repeated the slur over the b-a motif that Chopin entered into A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors of FC