mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 355

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

mid-bar in A

 at end of bar in FC (→GE)

on 2nd beat in FE (→EE)
..

Just like in b. 351, the sources present three versions of the placement of the  mark, out of which each one can be regarded as corresponding to Chopin's intention: the marks in A and FC are written with Chopin's hand, while the mark in FE is a possible interpretation of the notation of A. To the main text we adopt the version of A, compliant with the version of b. 351 we adopted. It is worth noticing that Chopin wrote still another pedalling in the repetition of that fragment (b. 452-453 & 456-457).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 355-356

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur to B in A (→FC) & GE2 (→GE3)

Slur to bar 356 in FE (→EE)

No slur in GE1
..

The longer slur of FE (→EE) results from overinterpretation of the slur of A. The fact of GE1 having omitted the slur is an oversight, corrected in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 382-383

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Shorter slur in FE (→EE)
..

The interpretation of the phrase mark of A by FE (→EE) must be considered inaccurate: the phrase mark of the manuscript is pulled to the beginning of b. 383, while the bold ending of the slur proves a careful, diligent stroke of the pen.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 383

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur from 1st note in A (probable interpretation→FE→EE) & GE

Slur from 2nd note in A (possible interpretation→FC)
..

In A it is unclear whether the phrase mark is to begin from the 1st or the 2nd note of the bar, which was reflected in the differing versions of FC and FE (→EE). At the same time, in FE there are visible traces of shortening the phrase mark, which initially reached b1 in the previous bar. The version of GE is probably a 'standard inaccuracy' resulting from a tendency to adjust phrase marks (and dynamic hairpins) to regular rhythmic structures, e.g. bars, which is documented in a number of Chopin's pieces.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 412-435

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

7 longer, 5 shorter slurs in A

2 longer, 10 shorter slurs in FC

9 longer, 3 shorter slurs in FE

12 shorter slurs in GE

8 longer, 3 shorter slurs in EE

12 longer slurs suggested by the editors
..

In A the slurs over the motifs of the bottom voice encompass the quavers only or reach the minim in the next bar. However, the differences are almost certainly of an accidental nature, hence in the main text we unify them, assuming 6-note slurs to be more frequent in A (7 longer, 2 shorter and 3 questionable). Accidental inaccuracies are also present in the remaining sources, except for GE, in which all slurs encompass 5 notes. The majority of the doubts concerning the range of the slurs is due to the ending lines: a slur suggesting continuation is not finished in a new line (b. 418-419 in A and FC, 432-433 in A, 412-413, 420-421 and 428-429 in FE and b. 422-423 in EE). In such situations we give shorter slurs in our transcriptions, just like in b. 426-427 in A and 412-413 in 428-429 in FC, which may be thought to be dubious. EE omitted the slur in b. 420-421. Neither FC nor FE, EE and GE reproduced the notation of the Stichvorlage correctly; however, the total number of inaccuracies in this section is smaller than the first time (b. 310-333).

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

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in EE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in FC , Uncertain slur continuation