mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Corrections in A

b. 265

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

In A the beginning of the sotto voce indication was placed on the  mark, which had been written earlier.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A

b. 274-276

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur to bar 274 in A (→FE→EE)

Slur to end of bar 276 in FC

Slur beyond bar 276 in GE1

Slur to bar 276 in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The longer phrase mark of FC is the original version copied (somehow inaccurately) from A: in A one can see that when it returned to Chopin after having been copied by Fontana, the composer crossed out the original ending of that phrase mark and added a new ending 2 bars earlier. The long, continuous slur in GE1 results from a misinterpretation of FC, rectified in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Corrections in A , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Deletions in A

b. 293

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

In A there are visible corrections and crossings-out in the R.H. part. Chopin tried a two-part notation there, probably the same as or similar to the one in b. 374.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A

b. 294-295

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur from c1 to a in A (→FE→EE)

No slur in FC & GE2 (→GE3)

Slur from c1 to b in GE1
..

According to us, the presence of an additional slur over the middle R.H. voice is related to the crossings-out visible in A related to the changes of layout: the voice was originally written on the bottom stave. The crossings-out separated the c1 minim from b, which probably prompted Chopin to enter a slur that would emphasise the course of the melodic line. This assumption is confirmed by the notation of the remaining three analogous places, which are devoid of both crossings-out and such a slur. It would be somewhat a special case of a mistake (unchecked effect) caused by a correction. Taking into account the above, in the main text we do not give that slur. It is also absent in FC: Fontana could have assumed that the slur, going through a crossed-out area, was also crossed out. Another possibility is that Chopin could have added it in A after having drawn up FC (it could also have been a common oversight). Anyway, Chopin did not add a slur upon seeing those bars in FC without one; however, he added a  hairpin. As he added a hairpin also in the three remaining analogous places, according to us, we can assume that it was that way of drawing attention to the sequence of the middle voice that he considered most proper and hence forwent additional slurs. The slur in GE1 is a result of a mistake: the engraver misinterpreted the tie of e1. See also the note on the curved lines in b. 295-297.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , Deletions in A

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