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. 390-391

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Separate slurs in A (→FC→GE1, #→FE→EE)

COntinuous slur in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The version of GE2 (→GE3) is a result of a revision unifying the slurring with b. 369-370.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 392-393

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

f-f1 repeated in A (→FC→GE1)

Only f1 repeated in FE (→EE)

f-f1 tied in GE2 (→GE3)
..

A comparison with b. 266-267 and analog. (7 places in total) points to Chopin's patent mistake. Therefore, in the main text we include the ties added in GE2 (→GE3). The tie of f was added already in FE (→EE), which is probably a revision of the engraver, who added the missing tie in the chord on the bottom stave as part of his routine activities (such routine additions are evidenced in the Mazurka in D Major, Op. 33 No. 3, b. 8-9 and 24-25).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Errors of A , FE revisions

b. 394

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

3 crotchets in A (→FC→GE)

Dotted rhythm & crotchet in FE

Crotchet & dotted rhythm in EE & FESf
..

The origin of the version of FE is unclear. It may be Chopin's proofreading; it would be then the latest authentic version. On the other hand, one cannot exclude a mistake of the engraver: looking at the already finished, correctly engraved version of FE, the engraver could have mistakenly associated the dot prolonging the f1 minim with the e1 crotchet and could have added the allegedly missing quaver flag to the next note. The second possibility is supported by the fact that the notation of FE is not entirely correct, since extending dots should be both next to e1 and f1. One can assume that Chopin would have bothered to add the second dot if he had prolonged the 1st crotchet. In this situation we consider the version of FE only a variant of uncertain authenticity while saving the main text for the undoubtedly Chopinesque version of A. The version of FE was regarded as erroneous already in EE, in which, however, not knowing the authentic version, the rhythm of the three previous analogous bars was introduced (369, 373 and 390). The same correction was entered into FESf, which could have also been performed by analogy and which does not influence the evaluation of a possible authenticity of that version.  

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 395

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

In GE2 the top voice is written in normal font notes. It is probably a mistake or perhaps an erroneous revision. GE3 restored the authentic notation using small quavers. Interestingly, normal font notation was initially also in A. However, Chopin quickly changed the concept and crossed out the R.H. part so written still before adding the L.H. part.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

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

b. 395

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Fingering in A

No fingering in FC (→GE) & FE (→EE)
..

Just like in b. 293, the fingering digit written in A was not reproduced in any of the remaining sources, perhaps due to lack of understanding of its meaning.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors of FC