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. 332

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

Chopin deleted in A the  mark filling the middle part of the bar.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A

b. 336-351

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No markings in A (→FC→GE)

Staccato dot in FE (→EE)

Slurs suggested by the editors
..

We consider the missing slurs in b. 336, 344 & 351 to be an inaccuracy of notation. In analogous b. 438, 446 & 453 A features slurs in the first and third of them, whereas differentiating between the performance of such similar accompanying figures seems to be unjustified.

The staccato dot in b. 351 in FE (→EE) must be a mistake. 

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 338-347

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Three-note slurs in A (literal reading→FE→EE)

Two- & three-note slurs in FC (→GE1)

Two-note slurs in GE2 (→GE3)
..

When interpreted literally, the slurs of A in b. 338-339 & 346-347 seem to be reaching the bass note in the next bar. However, according to us, it is an inaccuracy, a manner of writing slurs significantly going beyond the intended range, cf., e.g. the phrase marks in b. 320 (corrected) & 326 (see also the Mazurka in G Minor, Op. 24 No. 1, b. 21, 23-24). Due to the above reason, in the main text we give pianistically natural slurs, modelled after the ones Chopin wrote in analogous b. 440-441 & 448-449. Such a solution was introduced already in GE2 (→GE3). The first slur of FC (→GE1), which is shorter, is probably accidental: the copyist forgot to put the ending of the slur in a new line of the text.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Embracing slurs , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 348

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur from f in A (→FE,FC→GE)

Slur from B in EE
..

The version of EE, which can be considered an interpretation – ignoring the musical sense – of the slur of A, written with panache, could have been repeated after FE, which, after all, was based on A. In the very FE the erroneous slur would have been corrected in the last phase of proofreading (although there are no visible traces of such a correction on the available photocopies of FE copies). In turn, the slur in GE1 – beginning from f in the previous bar – is completely erroneous. The engraver could have mistaken the bars, since they end with the same note (the mistake was corrected in subsequent GE).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 350

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

End of slur in A, literal reading

Slur to B in A, possible interpretation

Slur to e in A, contextual interpretation (→FC→GE, →FE→EE)

2 slurs in A, different interpretation
..

It is difficult to interpret the slur of A, since it ends abruptly under the 3rd crotchet, which does not point to a clear ending thereof. We suggest a few possibilities. To the main text we choose the one that is most similar to the notation of an analogous place (b. 452). This is how it was interpreted in the sources based directly on A, i.e. FE and FC.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A