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
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 1

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

No mark in GC (→GE)

Accent in FE (→EE)
..

The accent could have been added by Chopin in [A] (→FE→EE) after GC had been already prepared and as such could represent the latest concept of determining the performance manner of the beginning of the Scherzo.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 2-4

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

Wedges in GC & FE

Dots in GE

No signs in EE
..

Staccato dots at the beginning of bars 2 and 4 consist the most glaring example of German engraver's misrepresenting wedges in GC – the difference between wedges there and dots in neighbouring bars 1, 3 & 5-7 is very distinct. GE did not use any wedges in the whole Sonata. The lack of signs in EE is most probably an oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , Wedges

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

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