



Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
b. 490
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The staccato dot at the beginning of the bar was added in GE2 (→GE3) most probably by analogy with b. 482. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||||||
b. 492-493
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In A there is a clear difference between the long accents in the R.H. and the short accent on A in b. 493. It is noticeable in FC, yet it may easily be considered insignificant, related to natural imperfection of handwriting, which explains the unification of the marks in GE. It is even more difficult to assess the marks in FE; in the entire section, which begins here, the differences between the accents, although visible, do not seem to signalise a different meaning. In the discussed bars we assume that these are long accents. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE |
||||||||||||
b. 493
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The missing accent in FE must be a result of the engraver's inaccuracy. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
||||||||||||
b. 495-515
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In the entire fragment (until b. 515) the accents under the R.H. bottom voice minims are of different length; they are also ambiguous in terms of their shape. As a result, determining whether Chopin meant a long or a short accent in a given bar is very problematic. We assume that they are long accents, since:
Similarly to b. 311-333, the remaining sources do not contain traces of Chopinesque intervention in this regard. The differences in the size of the marks in FC are minimal, so we assume – in accordance with GE – that they are short accents. Fontana overlooked the marks in b. 505 and 507, which was corrected in GE2 (→GE3). In FE we determine the length of the accents by comparing them with the undoubtedly short accents in the L.H. It results in short accents only in b. 501, 503 and 505. It is uncertain whether those differences were intended by the engraver, since the use of longer or shorter marks is neither musically consistent nor corresponding to the differences in A. In EE all accents are short except for b. 515, where the mark is clearly bigger. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , GE revisions , Errors of FC , Inaccuracies in FC |
||||||||||||
b. 495-503
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
Wherever the bass features the seventh of a dominant chord, Chopin provides it in A with a long accent (b. 495 and 503). The marks were overlooked by Fontana in FC (→GE1), whereas in FE (→EE) they were reproduced as short accents. Short accents were added in GE2 (→GE3), suspecting, correctly, inaccuracy of the notation of FC and GE1. A particular role of those notes is also emphasised by a slur combining each of them with the bass note in the next bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Errors of FC |