mUltimate Chopin

Select:

Verbal indications

« Previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Next »

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.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

Show

in transcript in source compare sources

b. 358

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

on 1st beat in A (→FC→GE1)

No marking in FE (→EE)

on 2nd beat in GE2 (→GE3)

The indication is missing in FE (→EE), see b. 350. Moving to the second beat of the bar is an arbitrary revision of GE2 (→GE3) (cf. the Etude in C Major, Op. 10 No. 1, b. 1).

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

Show

in transcript in source compare sources

b. 358

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in A (→FC,FE→EE) & GE2 (→GE3)

in GE1

An erroneous interpretation of the Chopinesque as would frequently happen to the engravers of the first editions, see, e.g. the Sonata in B Minor, Op. 35, I mov., b. 5. The mistake was corrected in GE2 (→GE3).