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. 375-376

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

g-e1 repeated in A (→FC→GE1, →FE→EE)

g-e1 tied in GE2 (→GE3) & FESf
..

A comparison with analogous bars (b. 273-274, 293-294 and 396-397) points to Chopin's mistake, almost certain. Therefore, in the main text we include the ties added in GE2 (→GE3). Both ties were added in FESf.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Errors of A

b. 375-396

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No signs in A (→FE→EE)

2  in FC (→GE1)

2 longer  in GE2 (→GE3)
..

In the main text we give the  hairpin written by Chopin in b. 375-376 and 396-397 in FC (→GE). In subsequent GE the marks were arbitrarily extended after b. 273-274.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 376

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Dotted minim g in A (→FE→EE) & GE1

Minim g in FC & GE2 (→GE3)
..

The dotted g minim is the original version, left in A most probably by inadvertence. It is indicated by corrections in two previous analogous places (b. 274 and 295). Chopin's distraction in this place, as well as in the entire second appearance of this section, is proven by a few evident inaccuracies, e.g. the overlooked ties of g-e1 in b. 375-376 and f-f1 in b. 392-393. The versions of FC and GE1 are probably erroneous: the copyist was copying A with a dotted minim, of which the engraver of GE1 could not have been aware. The omission of the dot in GE2 (→GE3) is probably a revision unifying that bar with the three remaining analogous places. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Omitted correction of an analogous place , Errors of FC

b. 376-398

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

4 slurs in A (→FC→GE1)

No 3 slurs in FE (→EE)

4 slurs in GE2 (→GE3)
..

We give the motivic slurs in b. 376-377 and 397-398 after the unquestionable notation of A (→FC→GE1). The version of FE (→EE), in which three out of four slurs were omitted (both in b. 376-377 and in the R.H. in b. 397-398), was a result of carelessness of the engraver of FE. The version of GE2 (→GE3) is an arbitrary revision, unifying the slurring of all analogous bars after the erroneous version of GE1 in b. 274-275. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 376-378

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur to e1 in A (→FE→EE)

Slur to bar 378 in FC (→GE)

Slur to end of bar 376 suggested by the editors
..

In this case, the easiest explanation for the longer phrase mark of FC (→GE) is a mistake resulting from the change of division of the text into lines. The phrase mark in A reaches almost the end of the line, since b. 377, which ends it, is very tight. The copyist wrote an entire phrase in that line, until b. 378, and wrote a phrase mark whose range was similar to A, yet measured in relation to the end of the line. The ending of the tie of c1, put in A in b. 378, is an alternative opportunity to commit a mistake: Chopin did not place it at the pitch of the note head, but at the end of the stem, as a result of which it looks like a phrase mark.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FC