mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 230

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No sign in A (FE→EE)

 in FC (→GE1)

 in GE2 (→GE3)
..

In the main text we give the  hairpin entered by Chopin into FC (→GE1). In subsequent GE the mark was arbitrarily shortened and moved to above the top stave. A similar situation can be found in b. 681.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Placement of markings , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 239-240

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No sign in A (→FE→EE)

 in bar 240 in FC (→GE1)

 in bars 239-240 in GE2 (→GE3)
..

In the main text we give the  mark entered by Chopin into FC (→GE1). In GE2 (→GE3) the mark was extended so that it encompasses two bars (from b. 239) after the authentic  mark in analogous b. 107-108. A similar situation can be found in b. 690-691.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 294-295

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No sign in A (→FE→EE) & GE1

 in FC, probable interpretation

in GE2 (→GE3)
..

In the main text we give the  hairpin entered by Chopin into FC (→GE). The exact range of the mark is questionable: it is written in b. 294, the last one in line, and clearly goes beyond the bar line; however, there is no continuation thereof in b. 295. We assume that it marks the same range as in analogous b. 375-376 & 396-397, in which the hairpins in FC were also added by Chopin. GE1 omitted the mark (the engraver could have been uncertain how to interpret the described notation), whereas GE2 (→GE3) provided the hairpin with a longer range, modelled after b. 273-274, which seems less justified, since:

  • the missing continuation of the mark in a new line suggests only a slight extension, and not a one-bar extension;
  • Chopin wrote a longer mark only one, whereas shorter – twice.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 340-341

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in A (→FC→GE1)

in FC (→GE1)

in FE

in EE

in GE2 (→GE3)
..

In the main text we suggest that the range of the  mark be compliant with Chopin's entries in all three analogous places (b. 348-349, 442-443, 450-451), since we are convinced that the mark having been shifted in this place is a standard inaccuracy of notation. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies

b. 521

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in A & GE

Shorter  in FC

in bar 521 in FE (→EE)

Long accent in FED
..

According to us, the placement of the  hairpin under the L.H. chords in A was forced by lack of place over them: due to the notation of the topmost notes of the chords on the top stave, the mark must have been situated in a place already occupied by the R.H. slur and rests. It is confirmed by a teaching entry in FED, which we thus consider to be the most accurate expression of Chopin's intention. The hairpin of A was reproduced inaccurately both in FC and FE. In turn, the version of GE is close enough to the notation of A to be considered equivalent.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in FC