Issues : Inaccurate slurs in A
|
b. 310-333
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The slurs over the motifs of the bottom voice in A are of different length: they encompass the quavers only or reach the minim in the next bar. On many occasions, it is difficult or even impossible to say conclusively which of the slurs Chopin meant. Since there is no visible reason for those actually identical motifs to have different slurs, in the main text we unify them, assuming the six-note slurs to be more frequent in A. None of the remaining sources reproduced Chopin's notation accurately; the differences in FC and FE are exclusively of an accidental nature, whereas GE1, EE and GE2 (→GE3) also introduced arbitrary changes, ordering the notation. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 338-347
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
When interpreted literally, the slurs of A in b. 338-339 & 346-347 seem to be reaching the bass note in the next bar. However, according to us, it is an inaccuracy, a manner of writing slurs significantly going beyond the intended range, cf., e.g. the phrase marks in b. 320 (corrected) & 326 (see also the Mazurka in G Minor, Op. 24 No. 1, b. 21, 23-24). Due to the above reason, in the main text we give pianistically natural slurs, modelled after the ones Chopin wrote in analogous b. 440-441 & 448-449. Such a solution was introduced already in GE2 (→GE3). The first slur of FC (→GE1), which is shorter, is probably accidental: the copyist forgot to put the ending of the slur in a new line of the text. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Embracing slurs , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 348
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The version of EE, which can be considered an interpretation – ignoring the musical sense – of the slur of A, written with panache, could have been repeated after FE, which, after all, was based on A. In the very FE the erroneous slur would have been corrected in the last phase of proofreading (although there are no visible traces of such a correction on the available photocopies of FE copies). In turn, the slur in GE1 – beginning from f category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 350
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
It is difficult to interpret the slur of A, since it ends abruptly under the 3rd crotchet, which does not point to a clear ending thereof. We suggest a few possibilities. To the main text we choose the one that is most similar to the notation of an analogous place (b. 452). This is how it was interpreted in the sources based directly on A, i.e. FE and FC. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 369-370
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In A the slur at the end of b. 369 clearly suggests continuation, which is not confirmed by the slur in b. 370, at the beginning of a new page. The notation of FC can also be regarded as misleading in that respect. A comparison with three analogous places, b. 268-269, 288-289 & 390-391, evidently supports inaccuracy of the slur in b. 369, pulled too far. Therefore, in the main text we give separated slurs, yet the version of the editions with a continuous slur may be considered an acceptable variant in this case. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation |
in 
