mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 350-358

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

 & cresc. ed animato in A (→FC→GE)

No indications in FE (→EE)
..

The fact that an entire group of dynamic markings –  in b. 350, cresc. ed animato in b. 354-355 and  in b. 358 – is missing in FE (→EE) raises suspicions. The manuscript, in spite of few crossings-out, is perfectly legible; therefore, it is difficult to understand what could have provoked their omission. Could it have been Chopin that removed them in the proofreading? In FE  and cresc. ed animato were omitted also in analogous b. 452 & 456-457, which could be considered an argument for a change of the concept of that fragment. In the main text we give them on the basis of the authority of A and FC, carefully elaborated by Chopin in terms of performance indications.
 is discussed separately due to the revision introduced in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 350

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

End of slur in A, literal reading

Slur to B in A, possible interpretation

Slur to e in A, contextual interpretation (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)

2 slurs in A, different interpretation
..

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. 351

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

on 2nd beat in A (→FE→EE)

mid-bar in FC

 at end of bar in GE
..

In the main text we give the  mark in the middle of the bar, as written by Chopin in FC (it is one of the possible interpretations of the notation of A). In turn, the version of GE may be considered an interpretation of the notation of FC, perhaps accurate, since  in FC is close to the next  (cf. also the pedalling of FC 4 bars later). 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in A , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 351

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

GE2 omitted a staccato dot to B in the L.H. – certainly an engraver's oversight. The mark was added in GE3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

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