mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE revisions

b. 318-325

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

a2 & f2 tied in A (→FC→GE) & EE

a2 & f2 repeated in FE
..

The omission of the ties of a2 in b. 318-319 and of f2 in b. 324-325 in FE may be a result of misinterpretation of Chopinesque very short ties as endings of motivic slurs over the bottom voice motifs: see b. 310-323. The ties were added in EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE

b. 333

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

e2 in A (→FC→GE, →FE→EE1→EE2)

e2 in EE3
..

The version of EE3 is an arbitrary revision aiming at adapting this bar to b. 435, changed (also arbitrarily) already in EE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 360

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

A (→FC→GE1, →FE→EE1) has a reminding  before g1. The mark, unnecessary in this context, was removed in GE2 (→GE3) and EE2 (→EE3). The same applies to b. 462.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Last key signature sign

b. 365

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

In all editions except for GE2 the whole-bar rest was specified with the digit 1, one (FE and GE3) or two (GE1 and EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , FE revisions

b. 394

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

3 crotchets in A (→FC→GE)

Dotted rhythm & crotchet in FE

Crotchet & dotted rhythm in EE & FESf
..

The origin of the version of FE is unclear. It may be Chopin's proofreading; it would be then the latest authentic version. On the other hand, one cannot exclude a mistake of the engraver: looking at the already finished, correctly engraved version of FE, the engraver could have mistakenly associated the dot prolonging the f1 minim with the e1 crotchet and could have added the allegedly missing quaver flag to the next note. The second possibility is supported by the fact that the notation of FE is not entirely correct, since extending dots should be both next to e1 and f1. One can assume that Chopin would have bothered to add the second dot if he had prolonged the 1st crotchet. In this situation we consider the version of FE only a variant of uncertain authenticity while saving the main text for the undoubtedly Chopinesque version of A. The version of FE was regarded as erroneous already in EE, in which, however, not knowing the authentic version, the rhythm of the three previous analogous bars was introduced (369, 373 and 390). The same correction was entered into FESf, which could have also been performed by analogy and which does not influence the evaluation of a possible authenticity of that version.  

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE