![](/build/images/logo_left-en.png)
![](/build/images/pl-button.5cab5de0.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button.d3d09842.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button-en.5098433b.png)
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 category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A |
|||||||||
b. 274-276
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
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
..
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 c 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
..
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 |