mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in FE

b. 382-383

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur in A (→FC→GE)

No slur in FE (→EE)
..

The missing slur for the L.H. is most probably an oversight of the engraver of FE. After all, it cannot be excluded that, looking at A, he regarded the L.H. slur as the beginning of the R.H. slur, which can be indicated by the original range of the R.H. slur in FE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 383-386

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Small notes in A (→FC→GE)

Regular font in FE (→EE)
..

Notation with normal font notes is a result of a misunderstanding of A by the engraver of FE (→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 394

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

3 crotchets in A (→FC→GE)

Dotted rhythm & crotchet in FE

Crotchet & dotted rhythm in EE & FESf
..

The origin of the version of FE is unclear. It may be Chopin's proofreading; it would be then the latest authentic version. On the other hand, one cannot exclude a mistake of the engraver: looking at the already finished, correctly engraved version of FE, the engraver could have mistakenly associated the dot prolonging the f1 minim with the e1 crotchet and could have added the allegedly missing quaver flag to the next note. The second possibility is supported by the fact that the notation of FE is not entirely correct, since extending dots should be both next to e1 and f1. One can assume that Chopin would have bothered to add the second dot if he had prolonged the 1st crotchet. In this situation we consider the version of FE only a variant of uncertain authenticity while saving the main text for the undoubtedly Chopinesque version of A. The version of FE was regarded as erroneous already in EE, in which, however, not knowing the authentic version, the rhythm of the three previous analogous bars was introduced (369, 373 and 390). The same correction was entered into FESf, which could have also been performed by analogy and which does not influence the evaluation of a possible authenticity of that version.  

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 395

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Fingering in A

No fingering in FC (→GE) & FE (→EE)
..

Just like in b. 293, the fingering digit written in A was not reproduced in any of the remaining sources, perhaps due to lack of understanding of its meaning.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors of FC

b. 395-399

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur to end of bar 397 in A (→FC→GE1)

Slur to end of bar 395 in FE, literal reading

Slur to e1 in bar 396 in EE

Slur to bar 399 in GE2 (→GE3)
..

In the main text we give the ending of the phrase mark after A (→FC→GE1). The version of FE is erroneous and inaccurate (the phrase mark in b. 395 suggests continuation, yet in b. 396 there is no ending in a new line), which was revised in EE in the easiest way possible. The long phrase mark of GE2 (→GE3) is – just like in b. 295-297 – a result of a unifying revision.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation