Issues : GE revisions

b. 154

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Staccato dot in A & GE

No mark in FC & FE (→EE)

..

The second octave in this bar is provided in A with a staccato dot (due to smeared ink the mark became distorted, yet, according to us, there is no doubt that the person who wrote it meant a dot). That dot, however, was not reproduced in any of the sources based on A, neither in FC nor in FE (→EE). The reason could have been an oversight or an omission due to the inability to recognize the shape of the mark. GE added a dot most probably by analogy with b. 22 and 46. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 154

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

 in A (→FC) & GE2 (→GE3)

No marking in FE (→EE)

in GE1

..

The missing  is most probably an oversight of the engraver of FE. The  marking featured here in GE1 must also be a mistake, which was corrected in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , fz – f

b. 162-163

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Long accent in A (→FCGE1)

in FE (→EE)

in GE2 (→GE3)

..

In accordance with the analysis of the Chopinesque  or  marks in this and analog. pairs of bars (see b. 6-7), in the main text we give the averaged, more or less one-bar hairpin of FE (→EE). According to us, all marks, regardless of their length, are supposed to be long accents.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies

b. 162-165

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur in A (literal reading→FE)

Slur in FC (literal reading) & GE3

Slur in GE1

Slur in GE2

No slur in EE

..

There are probably several reasons for the differences in the slurring of these bars. The slur of A (→FE) is probably inaccurate – one can see that Chopin was running out of ink; therefore, one can assume that it was supposed to reach the beginning of b. 165, like in analogous b. 30-33. This is the interpretation of the slur of A that we give in the main text. The slur of FC is clearly erroneous – the copyist reproduced only the ending of the slur of A, falling on the beginning of a new line, despite the fact that the line in A opens with b. 164, whereas in FC – with b. 163. GE1 repeated the notation of FC; however, the slur was led to the beginning of b. 164, which can be considered an interpretation of the slur of FC. GE2 regarded the slurs of FC and GE1 as erroneous and replaced them with a slur modelled after b. 30-33. GE3 generally returned to the version of FC, yet the beginning of the slur was placed in b. 162, which does not affect its meaning.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Errors of FC , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 179-181

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

In the main text we add cautionary flats before the E1 and E grace notes in b. 179 and before the D1-D octave in b. 181. The signs in b. 181 were added already in GE, those in b. 179 – in GE2 (→GE3).
There is an identical situation in b. 630-632.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions