mUltimate Chopin

Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : FE revisions

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. 8

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

a in chord in GC (→GE) & FE2 (→EE,FE3→FE4) 

a in chord in FE1
..

The version with a in FE1 is certainly not intended by Chopin, which is proved by the  before the note in the respective bar of the recapitulation, which was not written in the base text to FE, as well as the compatible text of the remaining sources in the discussed bar. The engraver, instead of a , wrote an erroneous  before this note (unjustified in this context).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions

b. 13

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

Tie to d in GC (→GE) & FE2 (→EE,FE3→FE4)

No tie in FE1
..

The missing tie sustaining d in FE1 is undoubtedly a mistake of the engraver, corrected already in FE2. In the respective bar of the recapitulation (bar 201), FE1 includes this tie.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions

b. 17-21

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

Slur up to bar 21 in GC

No slur in FE1

Slur in bars 17-20 in FE2 (→EE,FE3→FE4) & GE
..

No slur in FE1 is undoubtedly an oversight of the engraver, corrected – certainly on the basis of [A] – in FE2. However, it is not entirely clear what the range of the slur intended by Chopin was, as the sources based on [A] seem to convey different versions and both the copyist and the engraver of FE did not always faithfully reproduce Chopin's notation. In addition, the slur of GC, despite the fact that it clearly reaches the beginning of bar 21, cannot be considered to be unambiguous – the beginning of the slur also exceeds the bar line, which cannot mean its starting in bar 16. It is the recapitulation that comes to help (bars 205-209), in which the engraver of FE1, looking at the same place of [A], interpreted the slur differently than for the first time, yet in accordance with the more likely, literal interpretation of GC. Due to this fact, in the main text we give the slur reaching until E1-E. See also bars 61-65.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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