![](/build/images/logo_left-en.png)
![](/build/images/pl-button.5cab5de0.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button.d3d09842.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button-en.5098433b.png)
Issues : EE revisions
b. 478-479
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In the main text we add a cautionary category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , GE revisions , Annotations in FESf |
||||||||||||
b. 492-493
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In A there is a clear difference between the long accents in the R.H. and the short accent on A in b. 493. It is noticeable in FC, yet it may easily be considered insignificant, related to natural imperfection of handwriting, which explains the unification of the marks in GE. It is even more difficult to assess the marks in FE; in the entire section, which begins here, the differences between the accents, although visible, do not seem to signalise a different meaning. In the discussed bars we assume that these are long accents. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE |
||||||||||||
b. 493
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In A (→FC→GE1, →FE→EE1) there is no accidental before the last crotchet in the R.H. It must be a mistake, cf., e.g. analogous b. 497. Oversight of an accidental necessary for writing a note belonging to a currently valid key is one of Chopin's most frequent mistakes. A natural was added only just in GE2 (→GE3) and EE2 (→EE3); it was also added in FESf. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE , Annotations in FESf |
||||||||||||
b. 494
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In A (→FE,FC→GE1) there is no category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE |
||||||||||||
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 |