mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in FE

b. 318-325

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

a2 & f2 tied in A (→FC→GE) & EE

a2 & f2 repeated in FE
..

The omission of the ties of a2 in b. 318-319 and of f2 in b. 324-325 in FE may be a result of misinterpretation of Chopinesque very short ties as endings of motivic slurs over the bottom voice motifs: see b. 310-323. The ties were added in EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE

b. 348-349

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in A & GE2 (→GE3)

No sign in FC (→GE1) & FE (→EE)
..

The  hairpin, very clear in A, was overlooked both in FC (→GE1) and FE (→EE). Its absence in FC may be explained by a possibility that the mark was added in A later, yet its absence in FE must be an oversight. The hairpin was added in GE2 (→GE3) most probably by analogy with the remaining three similar places.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors of FC

b. 350-358

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

 & cresc. ed animato in A (→FC→GE)

No indications in FE (→EE)
..

The fact that an entire group of dynamic markings –  in b. 350, cresc. ed animato in b. 354-355 and  in b. 358 – is missing in FE (→EE) raises suspicions. The manuscript, in spite of few crossings-out, is perfectly legible; therefore, it is difficult to understand what could have provoked their omission. Could it have been Chopin that removed them in the proofreading? In FE  and cresc. ed animato were omitted also in analogous b. 452 & 456-457, which could be considered an argument for a change of the concept of that fragment. In the main text we give them on the basis of the authority of A and FC, carefully elaborated by Chopin in terms of performance indications.
 is discussed separately due to the revision introduced in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 372-373

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Tie to f1 in A (→FC), GE2 (→GE3) & FESf

No tie in FE (→EE)

Slur c1-e1 in GE1
..

The missing tie of f1 is a patent mistake, although in FE it was overlooked, while in GE1 – distorted, since it was interpreted as a slur combining the crotchets of the middle voice, c1 and e1. The correct version was introduced in subsequent GE; the tie was also added in FESf.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Annotations in FESf

b. 376-398

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

4 slurs in A (→FC→GE1)

No 3 slurs in FE (→EE)

4 slurs in GE2 (→GE3)
..

We give the motivic slurs in b. 376-377 and 397-398 after the unquestionable notation of A (→FC→GE1). The version of FE (→EE), in which three out of four slurs were omitted (both in b. 376-377 and in the R.H. in b. 397-398), was a result of carelessness of the engraver of FE. The version of GE2 (→GE3) is an arbitrary revision, unifying the slurring of all analogous bars after the erroneous version of GE1 in b. 274-275. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions