mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 597-598

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in A

in FC & FE (→EE)

in GE
..

In accordance with the analysis of the Chopinesque  or  marks in this and analogous pairs of bars (see b. 6-7), in the main text we give the averaged, more or less one-bar hairpin of FC and FE (→EE). According to us, all hairpins, regardless of their actual length, are to be interpreted as long accents.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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

b. 605

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in A (→FC,FE→EE) & GE2 (→GE3)

in GE1
..

Just like in analogous b. 154, the indication , instead of , must be a mistake of the engraver of GE1. The mistake was corrected in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , fz – f

b. 606-607

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

Just like in b. 23-24, in FE (→EE) this pair of bars was replaced with a double bar with a two-bar rest marked with the digit 2. In GE1 the bars were not combined, yet in each of them both rests were provided with the digits 1. In the main text we preserve the notation of A (→FC), restored also in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , FE revisions

b. 613-614

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

 in A (→FC→GE1, →FE→EE)

in GE2 (→GE3)

 suggested by the editors
..

In accordance with the analysis of the Chopinesque  or  in this and all analogous pairs of bars (see b. 6-7), in the main text we give an averaged, more or less one-bar  hairpin. According to us, all markings, regardless of their actual length, are to be interpreted as long accents.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 621-622

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No sign in A (→FC→GE1, →FE→EE)

in GE2 (→GE3)

 suggested by the editors
..

The missing  must be an inaccuracy of notation, since corresponding marks –  or  – are in all 11 analogous places. On the basis of an analysis of those marks (see b. 6-7), in the main text we give an averaged, more or less one-bar  hairpin. According to us, all signs, regardless of their actual length, are to be interpreted as long accents. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions