mUltimate Chopin

Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 504-507

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Long, short & 2 long accents in A (literal reading)

3 short accents in FC

2 short accents in GE1

4 short accents in A (contextual interpretation→FE→EE) & GE2 (→GE3)
..

Three out of four L.H. accents in these bars are longer in A than the others, undoubtedly short (although not as long as the one in b. 503). The remaining sources contain short accents only, while FC is missing the last one, whereas GE1 – the last two. As the version of A we give the literal interpretation, with three long accents. However, in the main text we adopt short accents, since Chopin, by means of placement of an accent, i.e. under or over the notes, indicated whether an accent refers to the crotchet (over, short accent) or to the minim (under, long accent), and the discussed accents are written over the notes.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 521

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in A & GE

Shorter  in FC

in bar 521 in FE (→EE)

Long accent in FED
..

According to us, the placement of the  hairpin under the L.H. chords in A was forced by lack of place over them: due to the notation of the topmost notes of the chords on the top stave, the mark must have been situated in a place already occupied by the R.H. slur and rests. It is confirmed by a teaching entry in FED, which we thus consider to be the most accurate expression of Chopin's intention. The hairpin of A was reproduced inaccurately both in FC and FE. In turn, the version of GE is close enough to the notation of A to be considered equivalent.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 538-540

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Slur &  in A, probable interpretation

5 accents in FC (→GE)

in FE (→EE)

Accents & , our alternative suggestion
..

In the main text we give 5 accents written by Chopin in FC, our principal source. The slur present in A was not reproduced both in FC and FE; Chopin also did not introduce it in any of them, although he was adding indications in this place in both of them. In turn, the  hairpin is preserved in FE and can be considered a fully-fledged variant. In turn, taking into account the fact that Chopin could have added it in A already after having proofread FC, we suggest it also as a variant completion of the version of FC.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Corrections in A , Chopin's hesitations , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 544

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No mark in A (→FC→GE)

Accent in FC (→GE)
..

The missing accent in A means that it was most probably added by Chopin in FC (→GE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FC

b. 544

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

No mark in FE (→EE) & GE1

Accent in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The missing staccato dot in FE and GE1 must be a result of the engravers' oversights (the engraver of GE1 can be excused, since it is difficult to identify the mark in FC). The accent added in GE2 (→GE3) by analogy with the next bars is an arbitrary revision.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions