Issues : FE revisions
|
b. 1-3
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The L.H. slurs added in bars 1-2, 2-3 in FE are almost certainly inauthentic. They were probably added due to the change of the layout: in the notation of A (→FC→GE), the R.H. part is situated on the bottom stave together with the L.H., as a result of which the slur over the notes naturally concerns both parts. In FE (→EE) the R.H. part was moved to the upper stave; hence the articulation and phrasing of the L.H. was no longer obvious. It could have been noticed by Chopin himself; however, it is difficult to assume that he could have added a slur suggesting a different phrasing of the L.H. An identical addition in GE1, which was not proofread by Chopin, perfectly illustrates the attitude of the engravers or revisers (in GE1 and EE in bars 1-2 it was also the R.H. slur that was adjusted to the L.H. slur, contrary to the Stichvorlagen). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , FE revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 4-36
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In A (→#CF) Chopin did not introduce any additional indications over the semibreve rests (bars 4, 12, 23-24, 28 and 36), which was reproduced only in GE2. In FE (→EE) it was the digit 1 that was placed over each single rest, whereas a pair of bars with rests was replaced with a double bar with a two-bar rest provided with the digit 2. In GE1 in each of the discussed bars both rests were provided with the digit 1. A similar notation was introduced in GE3, in which, however, the ones in bar 24 were replaced with twos. In the main text we keep the simple but unequivocal Chopinesque notation. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , FE revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 5-37
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In this context, the markings with which Chopin provided the crotchets in bars 5, 13, 29 and 37 in A may only denote staccato only, although it is not obvious whether he meant wedges or dots, since they clearly differ from dots (e.g. numerous dots extending minims or crotchets), yet their shape also does not bring to mind wedges or even vertical dashes, which could be easily identified with them. Due to that reason, in the main text we also suggest dots, next to wedges, as an alternative solution. In the remaining sources the notation of A was inaccurately reproduced; GE is an exception; in that edition the notation was unified to a form that is absent in those bars both in A and FC. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , FE revisions , Wedges , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 40
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The manuscripts are missing the category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , FE revisions , Last key signature sign |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 47-48
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
Just like in b. 23-24, in FE (→EE) this pair of bars was replaced with a double bar with a two-bar rest marked with the digit 2. In GE1 the bars were not merged, but in each of them both rests were provided with digits 1. A similar notation was introduced in GE3, in which, however, the ones in b. 48 were replaced with twos. In the main text we keep the notation of A (→FC), which is also present in GE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , FE revisions |
before the bottom note of the 1st chord in the R.H. The patent inaccuracy was corrected both in