mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in GE

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. 294-295

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

g-e1 tied in A (→FC) & GE2 (→GE3)

g repeated in FE (→EE)

e1 repeated in GE1
..

The missing tie of g in FE (→EE) and the one of e1 in GE1 must be mistakes of the engravers: in both cases it was a motivic slur in the next lower voice (see the notes below) that was printed instead of a tie. In FE it is also the notation of the tie of e1 that is inaccurate: the correct tie is present only in b. 294, which ends the line. GE2 (→GE3) added the tie that had been overlooked in GE1.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 295

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Minim g in A & GE

Dotted minim g in FC & FE (→EE)
..

In the main text we keep the notation of A, which is a result of Chopin's reflection: the version featuring the dotted minim is the original one, crossed out in this and the previous analogous place (b. 274). The presence of that removed version both in FC and FE (→EE) may be puzzling, yet it is probably a result of the copyist's and the engraver's inattention. The missing dot in GE could be explained in the same way.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in FE , Corrections in A , Errors in GE , Errors of FC

b. 310-311

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

e2 tied in A (→FC), EE & GE2 (→GE3)

e2 repeated in FE & GE1
..

The missing tie of e2 must be mistakes of FE and GE1, corrected in EE and GE2 (→GE3) respectively.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 344

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Wedge in A (→FC,FE)

Dot in GE1 & EE

No mark in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The staccato mark in A, despite its smallness, is clearly prolonged (vertically). Both Fontana in FC and the engraver of FE regarded it as a wedge. GE1 and EE changed it to a dot, which can be considered acceptable, taking into account the fact that both passage E major sections feature only dots except for this place, including in analogous b. 438 & 446. GE2 (→GE3) did not include the mark, which could easily be considered an oversight if it were not for the dot in analogous  b. 446, which was also left out.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in GE , EE inaccuracies , Wedges