![](/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 : Inaccuracies in FC
b. 462
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
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
..
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
..
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:
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
..
The slur of A in b. 508 indicates the e 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
..
According to us, the placement of the 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 |