Issues : Inaccurate slurs in A
|
b. 53-54
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The slur of A does not go beyond the bar line, which must be an inaccuracy – cf. similar motifs in b. 55-56, 61-62, 62-63 (L.H.) and 63-64. In the main text we give the slur extended by Chopin in FC (→GE). category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
||||||||||||
|
b. 60
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
Both in A and FC the right-hand end of the slur was pulled through to almost the end of b. 60, with a flourish. category imprint: Source & stylistic information issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Embracing slurs |
||||||||||||
|
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 |
||||||||||||
|
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 |
