Issues : Errors in GE
b. 605
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
Just like in analogous b. 154, the indication , instead of , must be a mistake of the engraver of GE1. The mistake was corrected in GE2 (→GE3). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , fz – f |
||||||||||||
b. 644
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In A nad FC, this bar is a replica of b. 193, and likewise there we regard the shorter sign as possibly inaccurate. For that reason, in the main text we give a longer hairpin, modelled on b. 185. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||||||
b. 645
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
As in b. 637 and 639, we consider the staccato dot over b2 a remnant of the original version, presumably removed during the proofreading of FE (→EE). However, the absence of mark in GE is most probably an oversight by the engraver. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||||
b. 731
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The missing staccato dot in FE (→EE) and GE must be a result of oversights. We can excuse the engraver of GE, since the dot in FC looks like the ending of the octave's stem and is hard to perceive. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Errors in GE |
||||||||||||
b. 756-760
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The missing staccato dot in b. 756 in FC (→GE1) is most probably an oversight. It was also the dot in b. 760 that was overlooked in GE1, which, most probably, is also an oversight. By adding both dots, the reviser of GE2 correctly guessed Chopin's intention. In turn, the origin of the version of GE3 is puzzling, since there is no acceptable reason to remove the dot in b. 760. Consequently, it is either an erroneous revision or a misprint. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Errors of FC |