mUltimate Chopin

Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II

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. 32-33

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

No marking in GC (→GE)

in bar 33 in FE (→EE)

in bar 32 suggested by the editors
..

The absence of  in GC (→GE) is probably an oversight of the copyist. It is also possible that Chopin added it in [A] already after having prepared the copy. In FE (→EE) the sign is only at the beginning of bar 33, which, according to us, follows from the necessity of choosing place for the sign written in [A] (partially) on the bar line. It is confirmed by placing the  in the respective bar of the recapitulation (bar 220).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors of GC

b. 32-34

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

No ties in the sources

Ties suggested by the editors
..

The ties sustaining c1 or c do not appear in the sources at all – neither here nor in the reprise (bars 220-222), nor in the ending (bars 265-266). It remains in a clear opposition to bars 12-14 and 200-202, differing only in the mode (G major and not F minor), in which the sustention of analogous d1 or d notes is apparent (in spite of single, accidental oversights). Therefore, on the basis of the sources one has to assume that in these pianistically almost identical figures (in each of the three-chord motifs the difference concerns only one note – b(1) or a(1)), Chopin imagined the performance of the F minor chords differently than the ones in G major. Due to this fact, in the main text we leave the source version. On the other hand, the pianistic issues argument for a unified performance of all these places, both in terms of arpeggios of the tenth chords and sustention of the common note, as it was clearly marked in the R.H. Therefore, in all analogous situations, we give an alternative suggestion with a sustention of c1 or c.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

b. 32-34

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

No ties in the sources

Ties suggested by the editors
..

Due to the reasons discussed for the ties of the L.H., we suggest the version which sustains the c3 and c2 notes.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 34

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

..

As the top most note of the 1st chord, FE1 includes an erroneous a instead of b, which was corrected already in FE2. The mistake must have been in [A], as in GC an identical correction is to be seen.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions , Alterations in GC

b. 34

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

..

In GC and FE1 (→FE2→FE3,EE1), there is no accidental before the top most note of the 2nd chord in the L.H. This patent in this context inaccuracy was corrected in FE4, GE and EE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , EE inaccuracies , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in GC