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. 4

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

..

FE (except for FE4) lacks in five necessary accidentals – naturals before d2 and b and sharps before f, f2 and g2. This patent inaccuracy certainly has its source in the notation of [A]. Similarly in GC, in which, however, Chopin added a  raising b to b. In GC (→GE) there are also no naturals before the last octave in the R.H. – it can be an oversight of the copyist or a later addition in [A]. In the remaining sources the signs were completed (all additions can be attributed to a revision): three were added in EE1 and FE4, four in GE; only EE2 includes the correct notation. Cf. bar 24.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in GC , Authentic corrections in GC

b. 5-6

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

Two  in GC (→GE)

Two-bar  in FE (→EE)
..

According to us, the most likely explanation for the existing discrepancy between the sources based on [A] is the sometimes used by the engravers identification of two (or more) following  signs with one longer. A possible Chopin's correction in [A], introduced already after preparing GC, which is potentially an alternative explanation, seems to be poorly justified:

  • two  do not exclude a continuous crescendo, therefore, there is no need to combine the signs;
  • only the separate signs show also a dynamic change defining the character of the one-bar repetitive motifs, ended with an accent.

Due to this fact, in the main text we give the source and stylistically unquestionable indications of GC (→GE).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: FE revisions , Hairpins denoting continuation

b. 5

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

Accent in GC & GE2
..

The missing accent on the 3rd crotchet in GE1 is most probably an oversight of the engraver; the accent was added in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 7-9

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

Two slurs in GC (→GE)

No slurs in FE

Slur in FE based on bars 195-196

Our alternative suggestion

Slur in EE, literal reading

Slur in EE, possible interpretation
..

Determining Chopin's intention concerning the slurring of bar 8 (together with adjacent chords) encounters difficulties. The composer's idea can be represented both in the source versions and in our suggestions, considering a possible oversight of the engraver of FE. It is the versions of GC (the main text) and two versions based on the reconstructed on the basis of the reprise slur of FE that we consider to be most reliable, as far as the sources are concerned, and pianistically natural.

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

issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of EE

b. 7

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

No sign in GC (→GE)

 in FE (→EE)
..

No  in GC (→GE) is almost certainly an oversight of the copyist, who apparently forgot to write dynamic indications between the staves in the entire line of the manuscript (bars 7-15 – cf. bars 8, 9-10, 11-12 and 12). It is a relatively frequent type of mistake, resulting from the logically ordered, gradual organisation of the writing process.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of GC