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. 355-356

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur to B in A (→FC) & GE2 (→GE3)

Slur to bar 356 in FE (→EE)

No slur in GE1
..

The longer slur of FE (→EE) results from overinterpretation of the slur of A. The fact of GE1 having omitted the slur is an oversight, corrected in GE2 (→GE3).

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 361-364

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur to bar 364 in A (→FE→EE) & GE2 (→GE3)

Slur to end of bar 360 in FC (→GE1)
..

The missing ending of the slur in a new line must be a mistake of the copyist. The error was corrected in GE2 (→GE3), most probably on the basis of analogy with b. 463-466.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 369-370

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Separate slurs in A (contextual interpretation→FC)

Continuous slur in A (possible interpretation→FE→EE) & GE
..

In A the slur at the end of b. 369 clearly suggests continuation, which is not confirmed by the slur in b. 370, at the beginning of a new page. The notation of FC can also be regarded as misleading in that respect. A comparison with three analogous places, b. 268-269, 288-289 & 390-391, evidently supports inaccuracy of the slur in b. 369, pulled too far. Therefore, in the main text we give separated slurs, yet the version of the editions with a continuous slur may be considered an acceptable variant in this case.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation

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. 

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 376-378

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur to e1 in A (→FE→EE)

Slur to bar 378 in FC (→GE)

Slur to end of bar 376 suggested by the editors
..

In this case, the easiest explanation for the longer phrase mark of FC (→GE) is a mistake resulting from the change of division of the text into lines. The phrase mark in A reaches almost the end of the line, since b. 377, which ends it, is very tight. The copyist wrote an entire phrase in that line, until b. 378, and wrote a phrase mark whose range was similar to A, yet measured in relation to the end of the line. The ending of the tie of c1, put in A in b. 378, is an alternative opportunity to commit a mistake: Chopin did not place it at the pitch of the note head, but at the end of the stem, as a result of which it looks like a phrase mark.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FC