Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main


b. 547-550

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

2-note slurs in A (→FCGE)

3-note slurs in FE (→EE)

..

According to us, longer slurs in FE (→EE) are almost certainly an inaccuracy. The engraver could have relied on the R.H. slurs, which also encompass 3 crotchets; in this line of FE (b. 547-552), all 3 L.H. slurs present in such a context encompass 3 crotchets.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 547

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Accent in A (→FC,FEEE) & GE2 (→GE3)

No mark in GE1

..

GE1 features only one accent in this bar, placed between the staves, closer to the L.H. part. Therefore, we assume that it is a L.H. accent, which means no accent for the R.H.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 548-551

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

4 accents in A & GE2 (→GE3)

3 accents in FC

No marks in FE (→EE) & GE1

..

Four accents under the bass octaves were not reproduced in such a form in any of the remaining sources. While GE2 (→GE3) contains all accents, they are placed above the octaves, which is a revision of the text of GE1 on the basis of a comparison with FC and unification by analogy (an accent was added in b. 551, which is absent in FC).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 550

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

C in A (→FCGE, →FEEE)

C in FESf

..

The flats added in FESf could not have been written by Chopin, since the copy of FESf comes from an impression released sometime after his death. According to us, the variant entered into FESf may be, however, authentic: the pupil could have written down a change indicated by Chopin in a copy he purchased later.
A stylistic analysis leads to the conclusion that Chopin could definitely have suggested such a variant, since he would willingly use a Neapolitan chord; moreover, in this specific place, the C major chord is an exact equivalent of the G major chord from b. 546, so the version of the progression in FESf sounds as naturally as the version of the remaining sources. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FESf

b. 552-559

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

6 shorter, 2 longer slurs in A

4 shorter, 4 longer slurs in FC

3 shorter, 5 longer slurs in FE

4 shorter, 4 longer slurs in FC

5 shorter, 3 longer slurs in EE

8 shorter slurs in GE2 (→GE3)

8 longer slurs, our alternative suggestion

..

In A the slurs over the characteristic quaver motifs generally encompass only the quaver groups in these bars (the only exception are the slurs in b. 554-555, reaching the crotchet at the beginning of the next bar). The remaining sources do not show traces of Chopin's influence on the range of those slurs. Therefore, taking into account the fact that the discussed figures are identical, in every respect, in the main text we unify the slurs, giving always the ones Chopin wrote in A more often. Such a solution was also adopted in GE2 (→GE3). Alternatively, we also suggest 6-note slurs, which are more frequent in similar motifs in the entire Scherzo.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in FC , Uncertain slur continuation