mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FC

b. 462

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Long accent in A

Short accent in FC (→GE)
..

The shape of the accent in A suggests that it is a long accent. It is even more evident in similar b. 470. In FC (→GE) both marks were reproduced as common short accents. Taking into account the fact how carefully Chopin reviewed FC, the absence of corrections in those and similar places may mean that Chopin did not always consider the type of accent used to be a priority. We consider the version with a short accent featured in the principal source to be an acceptable variant.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 470

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Long accent in A

Short accent in FC (→GE) & FE (→EE)
..

The mark in A bears all the hallmarks of a long accent. In spite of that, both in FC (→GE) and FE (→EE) it was reproduced as a common short accent, which, according to us, may be considered an acceptable variant.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 495-515

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

11 long accents in A (contextual interpretation)

9 short accents in FC (→GE1)

8 long accents & 3 short ones in FE

10 short accents & 1 long one in EE

11 short accents in GE2 (→GE3)
..

In the entire fragment (until b. 515) the accents under the R.H. bottom voice minims are of different length; they are also ambiguous in terms of their shape. As a result, determining whether Chopin meant a long or a short accent in a given bar is very problematic. We assume that they are long accents, since:

  • these minims are a part of a motif repeated as ostinato, hence there is no reason to differentiate between them;
  • even the shortest ones (b. 499, 507 and 515) are clearly longer than all undoubtedly short accents in the L.H. (b. 493-494, 496-502 and 508-515).

Similarly to b. 311-333, the remaining sources do not contain traces of Chopinesque intervention in this regard. The differences in the size of the marks in FC are minimal, so we assume – in accordance with GE – that they are short accents. Fontana overlooked the marks in b. 505 and 507, which was corrected in GE2 (→GE3). In FE we determine the length of the accents by comparing them with the undoubtedly short accents in the L.H. It results in short accents only in b. 501, 503 and 505. It is uncertain whether those differences were intended by the engraver, since the use of longer or shorter marks is neither musically consistent nor corresponding to the differences in A. In EE all accents are short except for b. 515, where the mark is clearly bigger.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , GE revisions , Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 508-515

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

4 six-note slurs in A (contextual interpretation→FE→EE)

2 five-note slurs & 1 longer in FC

3 five-note slurs & 1 longer in GE1

4 five-note slurs in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The slur of A in b. 508 indicates the e2 minim in the next bar clearly enough for it to be considered a 6-note slur, according to us. This is how it was interpreted in FE (→EE). However, we consider a similar slur in FC to be shorter, encompassing 5 notes, since the minim starting in b. 509 is written at quite a distance from the bar line and does not seem to be related to that slur. The 5-note slur in GE corresponds to that interpretation. The 3 remaining slurs in A (b. 510-511, 512-513 and 514-515) undoubtedly encompass 6 notes, which was also correctly reproduced in GE (→EE), whereas in FC – inaccurately and with mistake (the missing slur in b. 512-513). GE1 repeated the notation of FC, adding the overlooked slur (anyway, the addition is careless, since when interpreted literally, the slur begins from the tied e2 crotchet at the beginning of the bar). GE2 (→GE3) eventually unified the slurs, so that all encompass quavers only.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 521

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in A & GE

Shorter  in FC

in bar 521 in FE (→EE)

Long accent in FED
..

According to us, the placement of the  hairpin under the L.H. chords in A was forced by lack of place over them: due to the notation of the topmost notes of the chords on the top stave, the mark must have been situated in a place already occupied by the R.H. slur and rests. It is confirmed by a teaching entry in FED, which we thus consider to be the most accurate expression of Chopin's intention. The hairpin of A was reproduced inaccurately both in FC and FE. In turn, the version of GE is close enough to the notation of A to be considered equivalent.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in FC