data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/73ecd/73ecd80c88ad44c39f3711b6bcc33ca9e1021267" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75013/75013441a15e45e6f391d55c49aaf803f3dff8a4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/57140/571405c7057401412640722d57e0f4262876af22" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3075f/3075f31e8b155e01785c3a53896ad205598099cf" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e59ea/e59ea164cc09fb20651e39bd84b5beefb140cf1e" alt=""
According to us, when interpreted literally, the source text featuring B chords on the 1st quavers and B
minor chords on the 4th ones resulted from the inaccurate notation – engrossed in carefully marking the oscillating basses in the seventh chords (g-g
), Chopin did not notice that in spite of looking the same, the tonic chords sound differently, as their mode changes depending on their position with respect to the bar line. Therefore, in this context, we assume that the problematic notes are d1, which is natural, hence more likely, since d
1 appears only in the passing chords and is clearly a foreign note (lower neighbouring note). Such omitted alteration cancellations belong to Chopin's most frequent mistakes.
As an alternative solution, we suggest one B minor chord in the middle of bar 206, which is a version containing a smaller number of additions to the source text, and yet acceptable from the harmonic point of view.
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions
issues: Errors in FE, Omissions to cancel alteration, Cautionary accidentals
notation: Pitch