|
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. 473-475
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The additional category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Errors of FC |
||||||
|
b. 476
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
It is difficult to indicate the reason for the omission of the accent both in FC (→GE) and FE (→EE). Chopin could have added it in A already after he completed FC, whereas the engraver of FE could have simply overlooked it. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Errors of FC |
||||||
|
b. 477
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Fontana's revisions , Inaccuracies in A , Errors repeated in FE , Annotations in FESf |
||||||
|
b. 477-478
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
When interpreted literally, the slur of A does not go beyond b. 477. A comparison with an analogous motif in b. 485-486 confirms the validity of the interpretation of that slur by FC (→GE1) and GE3. In turn, it is difficult to say what the motivation of the reviser of GE2 was while shortening that slur (and analogous in b. 481-482, 485-486 and 489-490), since he did not have access to A. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions |
in bar 475 in 
raising a3 to a
3, overlooked in 
