Issues : Uncertain slur continuation
|
b. 162-165
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
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. 180-181
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In spite of the lack of the ending of the slur in b. 181, which opens a new page in A, the clearly dragged ending of the slur in b. 180 leaves no doubt about Chopin's intention (there is a similar situation in analogous b. 631). However, it is not as obvious in FC, so in GE the slur was led only to the end of b. 180. The inaccurate notation of A was repeated unchanged in FE, whereas in EE the slur was clearly led to b. 181; moreover, an arbitrary analogous slur was added under the stave: see the note on pedalling in b. 179-180. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 369-370
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In A the slur at the end of b. 369 clearly suggests continuation, which is not confirmed by the slur in b. 370, at the beginning of a new page. The notation of FC can also be regarded as misleading in that respect. A comparison with three analogous places, b. 268-269, 288-289 & 390-391, evidently supports inaccuracy of the slur in b. 369, pulled too far. Therefore, in the main text we give separated slurs, yet the version of the editions with a continuous slur may be considered an acceptable variant in this case. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 395-399
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
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 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 412-435
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In A the slurs over the motifs of the bottom voice encompass the quavers only or reach the minim in the next bar. However, the differences are almost certainly of an accidental nature, hence in the main text we unify them, assuming 6-note slurs to be more frequent in A (7 longer, 2 shorter and 3 questionable). Accidental inaccuracies are also present in the remaining sources, except for GE, in which all slurs encompass 5 notes. The majority of the doubts concerning the range of the slurs is due to the ending lines: a slur suggesting continuation is not finished in a new line (b. 418-419 in A and FC, 432-433 in A, 412-413, 420-421 and 428-429 in FE and b. 422-423 in EE). In such situations we give shorter slurs in our transcriptions, just like in b. 426-427 in A and 412-413 in 428-429 in FC, which may be thought to be dubious. EE omitted the slur in b. 420-421. Neither FC nor FE, EE and GE reproduced the notation of the Stichvorlage correctly; however, the total number of inaccuracies in this section is smaller than the first time (b. 310-333). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in EE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in FC , Uncertain slur continuation |
