mUltimate Chopin

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

b. 7-8

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I

 in GC (→GE) & EE2

 in bar 8 in FE (→EE1)
..

The fact of beginning the  hairpin in FE (→EE1) later can be justly considered to be an inaccuracy related to the abbreviated notation of bar 7 in [A] and layout of the text in FE, in which bar 8 opens the 2nd line.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 7-15

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I

..

In GC – certainly in accordance with [A] – bar 7 is written in an abbreviated manner as a repetition of bar 6. Similar abbreviations appear also in the part of the L.H. in bars 10-11, 12 (the 2nd half of the bar) and 15.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Abbreviated notation of A

b. 7-9

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II

Two slurs in GC (→GE)

No slurs in FE

Slur in FE based on bars 195-196

Our alternative suggestion

Slur in EE, literal reading

Slur in EE, possible interpretation
..

Determining Chopin's intention concerning the slurring of bar 8 (together with adjacent chords) encounters difficulties. The composer's idea can be represented both in the source versions and in our suggestions, considering a possible oversight of the engraver of FE. It is the versions of GC (the main text) and two versions based on the reconstructed on the basis of the reprise slur of FE that we consider to be most reliable, as far as the sources are concerned, and pianistically natural.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of EE

b. 7

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II

No sign in GC (→GE)

 in FE (→EE)
..

No  in GC (→GE) is almost certainly an oversight of the copyist, who apparently forgot to write dynamic indications between the staves in the entire line of the manuscript (bars 7-15 – cf. bars 8, 9-10, 11-12 and 12). It is a relatively frequent type of mistake, resulting from the logically ordered, gradual organisation of the writing process.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of GC

b. 7-8

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt III

Dotted rhythm in GC (→GE)

Quavers in FE (→EE)
..

It is hard to state how the difference in the rhythm on the 1st beat of the bar occurred. The dotted rhythm in GC (→GE) seems to be a mistake of the copyist – the text is written uniformly, moreover, only bar 7 is written out with notes, as a result of which one, possible, mistake could have contributed to the change of the rhythm in both bars. On the other hand, Chopin's proofreading cannot be entirely excluded (a similar situation appears in Allegro de Concert, Op. 46, bar 17). In this situation, in the main text we give the version of FE (→EE), compatible with the unquestionable rhythm of analogous bars 11-12. Rhythmic variants of this type are to be found in numerous works by Chopin.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of GC , Dotted or even rhythm