mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 6-7

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Long accent in A (→FC)

in FE (→EE)

Short accent in GE1

in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The analysis of the  or  markings, written by Chopin in A in these and analogous bars, leads to the conclusion that, despite significant differences in length (from a long accent to a two-bar hairpin), all of them most probably denote long accents. Due to that reason, in the main text we decided to unify them; we adopted a compromise  marking, which is more or less one-bar long. In the remaining sources Chopin did not interfere with the shape of those markings.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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

b. 30-31

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in A (literal reading→FE)

 in A (interpretation) & GE2 (→GE3)

Long accent in FC

Short accent in GE1

in EE
..

The interpretation of the notation of A is problematic here: b. 30 ends the line, and the  mark goes far beyond the bar line (in b. 31 there is already no mark). We assume that it is a one-and-a-half-bar mark, like in GE2 (→GE3). In the main text, in accordance with the analysis of the Chopinesque  or  marks in this and analog. pairs of bars (see b. 6-7), we give here an averaged, more or less one-bar hairpin of EE. According to us, all marks, regardless of their actual length, should be interpreted here as long accents.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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

b. 73

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Small crotchet with slur in A (→FE)

Acciaccatura without slur in FC (→GE1)

Small quaver with slur in EE

Acciaccatura with slur in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The only undoubtedly authentic notation is the notation of A (→FE). According to us, the use of a long grace note does not influence the performance: it is most likely that it is to be performed as a short, unaccented grace note; if we take into account the slur, we may assume that it is simply an arpeggio whose bottom note does not need to be held with hand. The notation of FC may also be authentic; Chopin could have changed therein the type of the grace note used (the missing slur is almost certainly an oversight). After adding the slur, the notation with a slashed quaver (used in GE2 (→GE3) and clear in terms of performance) may be considered a rightful alternative version. The change introduced in EE is probably arbitrary.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 110-112

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No markings in A (→FC→GE1)

Pedalling in FE (→EE)

Pedalling in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The pedalling in these bars was added later: undoubtedly by Chopin in the proofreading of FE (→EE). However, one can have doubts whether the intention of Chopin's proof entry was interpreted correctly, since there is no reason to release pedals in the middle of the bar instead of at the end of it, like in all the remaining bars. Consequently, in the main text we give the version of GE2 (→GE3) modelled after the Chopinesque entry in FC in analog. b. 242-244.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 129

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Staccato dot in A (→#FCG)

Wedge in FE (→EE)
..

It seems unlikely that the wedge in FE (→EE) could reflect Chopin's intention: A clearly features a dot both in this bar and in analog. b. 261.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE