mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in FE

b. 307

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

g1 in A (→FC→GE) & FESf

b1 in FE (→EE1), contextual interpretation, and EE2 (→EE3)
..

The 2nd small quaver in FE (→EE1) is an erroneous b1, which we interpret as b1, since overlooked accidentals are much more common than Terzverschreibung mistakes. This is how this place was revised in EE2 (→EE3), by adding a  before that note. The correction in ink performed in FESf restores the correct pitch of that note, i.e. g1. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 309

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Staccato dot in A

No mark in FC (→GE) & FE (→EE)
..

The oversight of the staccato dot by the sources based directly on A is justified, to a certain extent, since the small sign is placed not only above the note, but also above the ending of the slur, so that one could have easily overlooked it. The fact that Chopin almost certainly meant a dot in this place is proven by analogous b. 411, in which a more distinct mark was noticed by the copyist.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors of FC

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

b. 310-311

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

e2 tied in A (→FC), EE & GE2 (→GE3)

e2 repeated in FE & GE1
..

The missing tie of e2 must be mistakes of FE and GE1, corrected in EE and GE2 (→GE3) respectively.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions