mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in GE

b. 478

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Long accent in A (→FC)

Short accent in FE (→EE) & GE2 (→GE3)

No mark in GE1
..

The long accent in A (→FC), quite clear, was reproduced in FE (→EE) as a short one. The mark in FC was first overlooked (in GE1) and then included in GE2 (→GE3), yet also as a short one.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 486

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Long accent in A (→FC,FE)

Short accent in EE & GE
..

Just like in analogous b. 478, A features here a long accent, although its length seems to be less distinct than there. Nevertheless, it was reproduced as a long one not only in FC, but also in FE, which previously contained a short accent. To the main text we adopt a long accent, in accordance with b. 478 and with a slightly longer articulation of these octaves marked by Chopin with rhythmic values: these are minims, and not staccato crotchets, such as in, e.g. the next two bars.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies

b. 492-493

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Long accents in A (→FC,FE)

Short accents in GE & EE
..

In A there is a clear difference between the long accents in the R.H. and the short accent on A in b. 493. It is noticeable in FC, yet it may easily be considered insignificant, related to natural imperfection of handwriting, which explains the unification of the marks in GE. It is even more difficult to assess the marks in FE; in the entire section, which begins here, the differences between the accents, although visible, do not seem to signalise a different meaning. In the discussed bars we assume that these are long accents.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE

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