Issues : Inaccurate slurs in A
|
b. 703-704
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
It is not entirely clear in A whether the slur in b. 704, which opens a new line, is to be considered a continuation of the preceding one, as it was understood in FE (→EE), or the beginning of a new one, as it was most probably reproduced by Fontana – in FC the slur at the end of b. 703 does not suggest a continuation. Therefore, the continuous slur of GE1 (→GE2) must be considered an inaccuracy, corrected in GE3. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 718-719
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The ending of the slur of A may seem inaccurate, hence the interpretation of that slur in FC (→GE) may be correct. An argument for such an interpretation could be a much shorter slur of A in an identical phrase 4 bars later. However, the correctness of the slur of A is supported by the clear slurs in the analogous situations in b. 758-759 and 762-763, hence in the main text we keep the notation of A. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||||
|
b. 722-723
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The slur of A is most probably unfinished due to ink flow problems; however, it is unclear where it should end. Two possibilities are involved: the beginning of b. 723, which is supported by the slurs in the analogous situations in b. 718-719, 758-759 and 762-763, or the end of b. 722, as it was interpreted by the copyist and which is indicated by the bend of the right-hand ending of the slur (or its visible, written part). In the main text we adopt the former, yet we consider the latter to be equivalent. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , FE revisions , Fontana's revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 755-756
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In A (→FC) b. 756 opens a new page, while the phrase marks, both in b. 755 and 756, suggest continuation. Therefore, it is no wonder that all editions combined them. On the other hand, the passage beginning in b. 756 is strictly opening (cf. its previous appearances in b. 49 and analog. and 716 and 720), so one can assume inaccuracy of notation, particularly in b. 756. Such phrase marks, written with a flourish, can be frequently encountered in Chopin's autographs, e.g. in b. 589 and 597, where their meaning is, however, unequivocal. Taking into account the above, we suggest two alternative solutions in which the phrase marks are not combined. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
