Issues : Errors of FC

b. 62-64

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

3 long accents in A

1 long accent in FC

3 short accents in FE (→EE)

1 short accent in GE1

in GE2 )→GE3)

..

Out of the three accents visible in A at the beginning of subsequent quaver motifs, it is only the third one that was repeated in FC. It can be explained by them having been added in A later or, which seems more likely, by the copyist's distraction. It is also unclear which accents Chopin meant: taking into account the whole-bar  hairpins in similar motifs in b. 53 and 55, we consider long accents to be more likely.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors of FC

b. 95-96

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur in A

No slur in FC (→GE) & FE (→EE)

..

The slur in A is inconspicuous, which explains it having been overlooked in the remaining sources. However, it was certainly intended by Chopin, since an identical indication is present in analogous b. 227-228

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors of FC

b. 101-102

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Tied a2 in bar 101-102 in A (→FC,FEEE) & GE3

No tied a2 in GE1

Tied a2 in bar 101 in GE2

Tied a2 in bar 101-102 – notation suggested by the editors

..

The version of GE1, which may seem to be a result of a serious misunderstanding or mistake, is probably a clumsy attempt at correcting the mistakes and inaccuracies of the notation of FC. For the copyist put a superfluous dot extending the d3 minim in the chord at the beginning of bar 101, whereas in the 1st chord in bar 102 he wrote the note head of the middle a2 in such a way that it is practically imperceptible (the fact that the note was to be there is proven by the extending dot). The above defects do not hamper the correct interpretation of the text if one is aware of A; however, having only FC at his disposal, the engraver of GE1 considered both dots in b. 101 as well as the one in b. 102, which seems to concern a non-existent note, to be mistakes. Eventually, he omitted the aimless (under these circumstances) curved line running from the a2 minim in b. 101 and leading nowhere. The reviser of GE2 also did not guess the correct text; it appears only just in GE3.
In the main text we change the original, one-part notation of the chord in bar 101 to a clearer, two-part one.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Different values of chord components , GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 113

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Accent in A (→FEEE)

No mark in FC (→GE)

..

It is uncertain whether the missing accent in FC (→GE) should be attributed to the copyist's distraction or whether it was added by Chopin in A (along with  in the next bar) after FC had been already prepared. Since in this theme we consistently adhere to the dynamic markings of FC, we do not give this accent in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Corrections in A , Errors of FC

b. 114-117

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

2 slurs in A

2 slurs in FE (→EE)

Slur in bar 114-115 in FC & GE2 (→GE3)

2 slurs in bars 114-115 in GE1

Slur suggested by the editors

..

The interpretation of the slurs of A is not easy. We consider the coinciding slurs to be the literal interpretation of the notation in b. 115-116, as it was reproduced in FE (→EE). However, according to us, it is more likely that Chopin wanted the second slur to be combined with the preceding one, which is indicated by a comparison with the unquestionable slur in analog. b. 246-249. Therefore, in the main text we suggest a slur led to the end of the phrase, modelled after those bars. The absence of the second slur in FC (→GE) may mean that it was added in A after the copy had been already completed. The additional slur in GE1 is probably a mistake. It is unclear how the extension, with respect to A, of the second slur in FE (→EE) occurred. It may be an inaccuracy, yet it cannot be ruled out that the slur was extended on purpose, perhaps even by Chopin.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

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