mUltimate Chopin

Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in GE

b. 7-8

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

Two equal  signs in GC

One  in FE

One longer  in GE1

Differing  in GE2mar (→GE2)

One shorter  in EE1

Differing  in EE2
..

The notation of GC, representing the abbreviated notation of [A], indicates, according to us, two  signs. A similar conclusion was reached by the reviser of GE2mar (→GE2), whereas FE and GE1 give a hairpin only in bar 7. Interestingly, in an analogous situation in bars 11-12, all editions put the indications in both bars (yet they differ in the way of considering the pedalling). As far as the range of the signs is concerned, in the main text we adopt the averaged signs of GC and FE, as the present between them one semiquaver difference seems to be unimportant. The longer signs of GE and shorter of EE are probably an inaccuracy of interpretation of the base texts.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions

b. 14-16

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

Slurs in GC, interpretation (→GE)

Slurs in FE (→EE)

Our suggestion
..

The slur of GC, started on the last beat of bar 14, is not continued in bar 15 (on a new line). The simplest interpretation of this notation – as a continuous slur – was performed in GE. The version, analogous to the slur embracing the next phrase, may be considered to be an equal variant to the main text, suggested by us, based on a comparison of this place with its repetitions in bars 22-24, 68-70 and 76-78. The analysis leads to the conclusion that the ending of the slur in bar 14 and related to it absence of the slur at the transition between bars 14 and 15 in FE (→EE) and the beginning of the slur in bar 15 from the 1st crotchet in GC are certainly or highly likely non-authentic elements.

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

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Corrections in A , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in GC , Authentic corrections in GC

b. 14

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

Long accent in GC

No mark in FE (→EE1)

Short L.H. accent in GE

Long L.H. accent in EE2
..

The accent in GC was probably added by Chopin. In GE, clearly against the manuscript, it was assigned to the L.H. and it was given a shape of a common, short accent. Such placed sign was repeated in EE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Authentic corrections in GC

b. 16

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

 in GC & GE2mar (→GE2)

 in FE (→EE)

Accent in GE1
..

It is not clear which of the sources based directly on [A] – GC and FE1 – conveyed the range more accurately and, as a consequence, also the sense of the  hairpin. Both versions have their stylistic advantages and can be convincingly justified, as far as the source aspects are concerned: 

  • The sign in FE clearly emphasises the culminant appogiatura of the melodic line. Chopin could have added it in [A] already after having prepared GC.
  • The sign in GC extends the culmination's release into the entire bar, somehow considering the counterpointing part of the L.H. The sign could have also been added by Chopin, if in [A] there were initially no dynamic signs here.

In the main text we give the  sign according to the base source, i.e. FE. The version of GC can be considered to be an equal variant.

The accent in GE1 is undoubtedly a result of misunderstanding of the notation of GC, which was corrected in GE2mar (→GE2).

Similarly in bars 24, 70 and 78.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions

b. 36-38

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

Slurs in Amar

GC

FE (→EE)

GE

Our suggestion
..

The differences in the slurring in the sources based directly on [A] – GC and FE – do not let an unanimous reproduction of the version of the Stichvorlage autograph. The version suggested in the main text is one of the possible reconstructions of the notation of [A], including a c2 grace note, added by Chopin in the proofreading of FE3 and in the base text to EE. The remaining versions of the sources, although they are most probably inaccurate, can be considered to be possible interpretations of this notation. The version of Amar is also worth paying attention to, undoubtedly authentic and natural, as far as the musical aspect is concerned.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A