Issues : Errors of FC
|
b. 495-515
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In the entire fragment (until b. 515) the accents under the R.H. bottom voice minims are of different length; they are also ambiguous in terms of their shape. As a result, determining whether Chopin meant a long or a short accent in a given bar is very problematic. We assume that they are long accents, since:
Similarly to b. 311-333, the remaining sources do not contain traces of Chopinesque intervention in this regard. The differences in the size of the marks in FC are minimal, so we assume – in accordance with GE – that they are short accents. Fontana overlooked the marks in b. 505 and 507, which was corrected in GE2 (→GE3). In FE we determine the length of the accents by comparing them with the undoubtedly short accents in the L.H. It results in short accents only in b. 501, 503 and 505. It is uncertain whether those differences were intended by the engraver, since the use of longer or shorter marks is neither musically consistent nor corresponding to the differences in A. In EE all accents are short except for b. 515, where the mark is clearly bigger. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , GE revisions , Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||||||||
|
b. 495-503
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
Wherever the bass features the seventh of a dominant chord, Chopin provides it in A with a long accent (b. 495 and 503). The marks were overlooked by Fontana in FC (→GE1), whereas in FE (→EE) they were reproduced as short accents. Short accents were added in GE2 (→GE3), suspecting, correctly, inaccuracy of the notation of FC and GE1. A particular role of those notes is also emphasised by a slur combining each of them with the bass note in the next bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Errors of FC |
||||||||||||
|
b. 504-507
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
Three out of four L.H. accents in these bars are longer in A than the others, undoubtedly short (although not as long as the one in b. 503). The remaining sources contain short accents only, while FC is missing the last one, whereas GE1 – the last two. As the version of A we give the literal interpretation, with three long accents. However, in the main text we adopt short accents, since Chopin, by means of placement of an accent, i.e. under or over the notes, indicated whether an accent refers to the crotchet (over, short accent) or to the minim (under, long accent), and the discussed accents are written over the notes. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Errors of FC |
||||||||||||
|
b. 508-515
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The slur of A in b. 508 indicates the e category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||||||||
|
b. 511-515
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The overlooked slurs are almost certainly an inaccuracy of notation, both in A (→EE) and FC (→GE1). The slur added in b. 512 (only!) in EE is probably a mistake; just like in FE, the engraver placed slurs in the entire line; however, he did not notice that in FE the line ends a bar earlier than in EE. In the main text we complete the slurring of A; such a procedure was performed also in GE2 (→GE3). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Errors of A , Errors of FC |
2 minim in the next bar clearly enough for it to be considered a 6-note slur, according to us. This is how it was interpreted in 
