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. 158-160

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

2  signs in GC

No signs in FE (→EE)

One  sign in GE
..

In the main text we include the  hairpin added probably by Chopin in GC. In GE the hairpin was moved between the staves and combined with the second  sign written in bar 160. Cf. bars 153-156.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections in GC

b. 158-159

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

Slur in GC (literal reading→GE)

Possible interpretation of slur in GC

Tie to d1 in FE (→EE)
..

On the basis of GC and FE it is hard to imagine what range and meaning the slur under the bottom voice of the R.H. is supposed to have. The sign in GC seems to be an articulation motivic slur starting under e1, however, it is unknown which note it is supposed to reach – d1, e1, or maybe even f1 in bar 159. In FE (→EE) the slur took the form of a tie sustaining the d1 minim. In the main text we give the version of the base source, i.e. FE. Two different ways of interpretation of the slur of GC may be considered to be variants.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GC

b. 158-159

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

..

The issue of sustaining the d1 note – see the previous note.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

b. 158

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

 on 2nd beat in GC (→GE)

 on 1st beat in FE (→EE)
..

It is hard to state which of the sources guessed the sense of the notation of [A] more accurately. It is highly likely that even seeing the autograph, we would not be sure how to assign the  sign, as in the case of the lower placed notes, Chopin would often put these signs before the note and not under it, which sometimes resulted in ambiguities. In the discussed bar, both pedalling versions are possible; to the main text we adopt the less schematic version. The absence of  in GC is a patent oversight.
Similarly in bar 159.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 158

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

..

GE2no2 overlooked the pedalling in this bar, perhaps in order to unify this bar with bar 30.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions