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
Slurs
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Slurs

b. 280-281

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur to bar 280 in sources

Longer slur suggested by the editors
..

In A the R.H. phrase mark ends abruptly between the last two notes in this bar, so both FC (→GE) and FE (→EE) led it to the last crotchet. However, a comparison with analogous b. 382-383 shows that such a literal interpretation of the phrase mark of A is incorrect, since the second time Chopin dragged the slur further, to the beginning of b. 383. At the same time, the way the ending of the slur is written down there, differently than in b. 280, suggests a conscious, deliberate movement of the pen. Therefore, in the main text we suggest a longer phrase mark.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 280-281

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

The missing slur in FC (→GE1) must be an oversight of the copyist. The slur was added in GE2 (→GE3), most probably on the basis of comparison with analogous b. 382-383 as well as 305-306 & 407-408.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 281

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur from 2nd note in A, possible reading

Slur from 1st note in A (different reading→FC→GE, →FE→EE)
..

The beginning of the phrase mark in A is unclear, since it blends with the L.H. slur. However, it is most likely that the phrase mark begins more or less midway between the first two quavers. It is also in analogous b. 383 that it is uncertain from which note the phrase mark should start according to Chopin. In the main text we include the notation of the remaining sources, with a phrase mark led from the 1st note of the bar.  

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 283-284

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

When interpreted literally, the right-hand ending of the phrase mark does not go beyond b. 283, yet its shape clearly suggests that it should be led to the last note of the passage. This is how it was understood in the remaining sources, which, being both musically and pianistically natural, we adopt in the main text. The righteousness of this decision is confirmed by the phrase mark of A in analogous b. 385-386, which was extended and clearly led to c4.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 294-295

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur from c1 to a in A (→FE→EE)

No slur in FC & GE2 (→GE3)

Slur from c1 to b in GE1
..

According to us, the presence of an additional slur over the middle R.H. voice is related to the crossings-out visible in A related to the changes of layout: the voice was originally written on the bottom stave. The crossings-out separated the c1 minim from b, which probably prompted Chopin to enter a slur that would emphasise the course of the melodic line. This assumption is confirmed by the notation of the remaining three analogous places, which are devoid of both crossings-out and such a slur. It would be somewhat a special case of a mistake (unchecked effect) caused by a correction. Taking into account the above, in the main text we do not give that slur. It is also absent in FC: Fontana could have assumed that the slur, going through a crossed-out area, was also crossed out. Another possibility is that Chopin could have added it in A after having drawn up FC (it could also have been a common oversight). Anyway, Chopin did not add a slur upon seeing those bars in FC without one; however, he added a  hairpin. As he added a hairpin also in the three remaining analogous places, according to us, we can assume that it was that way of drawing attention to the sequence of the middle voice that he considered most proper and hence forwent additional slurs. The slur in GE1 is a result of a mistake: the engraver misinterpreted the tie of e1. See also the note on the curved lines in b. 295-297.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , Deletions in A