![](/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 : Errors of FC
b. 62-64
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
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 category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors of FC |
||||||||||||
b. 95-96
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
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
..
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 d 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
..
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 category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Corrections in A , Errors of FC |
||||||||||||
b. 114-117
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
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 |