mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in GC

b. 218-219

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

..

GC includes identical sets of accidentals in the last chord in the R.H. in bar 218 and the first one in bar 219 – a  before the top bottom note (d2) and a  raising g2 to g2. In GE1, the  in bar 218 was printed before e2, which has to be considered to be a mistake, as the sign before d2 was placed correctly, whereas the  before e2 should have been already in the previous chord. In GE2 it was noticed that in bar 219 the  is supposed to concern the adjacent note, e2, however, the erroneous notation of bar 218 was left unchanged. FE (→EE) include the correct notation.

It is worth observing that in GC and FE the  before g2 in the last chord in bar 218 is not unnecessary, as the sign is absent in the previous crotchet.

In the main text, we add a cautionary  before d3 in bar 218. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 219-220

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

2 slurs in GC (literal reading→GE)

Continuous slur in GC (contextual interpretation) & FE→EE)
..

The version of GE probably results from a misinterpretation of the notation of GC – in this manuscript, b. 219 ends a great stave, and the slur, due to the discontinuation of ink flow, is poorly visible, hence it seems that it does not go beyond the last crotchet. However, the slur in b. 220 very clearly suggests continuation, which is confirmed by a continuous slur in FE (→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GC , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 224-227

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

End of the slur in EE & GC (→GE)

FE
..

The consistency of the slurring in EE and GC (→GE) suggests that the slur notation was  imprecise in the autograph. For our main text we take the slur of FE as undoubtedly correct.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Placement of markings , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 226

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

No indication in GC & FE (→EE1)

 in GE & EE2
..

The  indication here results from a mistake by the engraver of GE1, who interpreted thus the  sign hurriedly written in GC. The erroneous indication was repeated in EE2.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 231-235

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Slurs in EE and GC

Slur in FE

Our alternative suggestion

Slurs in GE
..

Both versions of the slurring found in the sources give rise to certain doubts. The slurs of EE and GC are inconsistent with the slurring in analogous bars 187 and – despite the differences – 481. Also the continuous slur of FE, more justified from the musical point of view, may be a simplified (inaccurate) rendition of the manuscript, as is testified by the slur in GE, which is after all based on GC. As our main text we adopt the slur of FE, but taking into account all the possible notation inaccuracies and misunderstandings, we also propose slurring consistent with the version of bar 187.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC