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. 295-297

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

R.H. slur from a in A (→FC→GE1, →FE→EE)

Slurs from b & d in GE2 (→GE3)

Slurs from a & c suggested by the editors
..

According to us, the majority of the sources led the slur up to b. 297 in order to clearly mark the fragment of A, heavily crossed out. A comparison with analogous b. 274, 376 & 397 proves that Chopin considered a slur reaching b. 296 to be enough, and this is the one we give in the main text. It was also the crossings-out that were probably the reason for the missing slur in the L.H., which we hence add. The differently led slurs of GE2 (→GE3), which repeated the erroneous slurs of GE1 from b. 274-275, cannot be justified, in terms of both sources and music.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 295-297

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur to e1 in A (→FC→GE1, →FE→EE)

Slur to bar 297 in GE2 (→GE3)

Slur to end of bar 295 suggested by the editors
..

The range of the top phrase mark in A is not entirely certain: its ending falls between e1 and a. In accordance with the majority of the remaining sources, we assume that it was to be e1. However, a comparison with the remaining analogous places prompts us to lead the phrase mark slightly further (the tenuto-slur emphasising the hold of e1).  The longer phrase mark of GE2 (→GE3) is modelled after the phrase mark in b. 274-276.

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

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions

b. 309-311

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

The deletions in A show the formation process of the slurring concept of this theme. Chopin started from the slurs encompassing only two crotchets in b. 309 and 311 (the slur in b. 309, led under the notes, suggests that he could have meant slurs reaching the 1st note of the next bar). However, eventually, he wrote a three-bar phrase marks. See also the note below.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A

b. 310

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur in A (→FC→GE)

No slur in FE (→EE)
..

The slur under the 2nd and 3rd crotchets, the only one in the L.H. part in both appearances of the C minor theme (except for b. 325 and analog.), can be considered a model entry, to be applied in all similarly structured figures. However, according to us, it is more likely that the slur was left as an inconspicuous remnant of the quest for the most proper way of marking that accompaniment. The slurs are visible both in the original version of b. 310-311, deleted in A, and in analogous b. 412-415, where the four-bar phrase mark was also deleted. On the basis thereof, one can assume that Chopin eventually abandoned the idea of slurs in this part, satisfied with the legato indication, repeated a few times (in b. 326, 412 & 428). The absence of the slur in FE (→EE) is probably an oversight of the engraver, yet taking into account the above observations, this version can be considered equivalent. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 310-333

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

6 longer, 6 shorter slurs in A

2 longer, 9 shorter slurs in FC

10 longer slurs in FE

3 longer, 9 shorter slurs in GE1

9 longer slurs in EE

12 shorter slurs in GE2 (→GE3)

12 longer slurs suggested by the editors
..

The slurs over the motifs of the bottom voice in A are of different length: they encompass the quavers only or reach the minim in the next bar. On many occasions, it is difficult or even impossible to say conclusively which of the slurs Chopin meant. Since there is no visible reason for those actually identical motifs to have different slurs, in the main text we unify them, assuming the six-note slurs to be more frequent in A. None of the remaining sources reproduced Chopin's notation accurately; the differences in FC and FE are exclusively of an accidental nature, whereas GE1, EE and GE2 (→GE3) also introduced arbitrary changes, ordering the notation.

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

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in FC