mUltimate Chopin

Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I

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. 4-5

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

No slur in GC (→GE) & FE1 (→FE2→EE)

Slur in FE3 (→FE4)
..

The slur over the part of the L.H. is undoubtedly a Chopin addition introduced in the proofreading of FE3 (→FE4).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 5

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

in GC & FE (→EE)

No marking in GE
..

The absence of  in GE must be considered an oversight of the engraver – cf. bar 1 (in this context it is the lack of addition of the sign in GE2 that is surprising). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 5

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

Double bar-line in GC

Single bar-line in FE (→EE1)

Repeat sign in GE & EE2
..

In GC the bars are separated with a double bar line, which is probably an arbitrary change introduced by the copyist (Chopin would rarely insert double bar lines, while changing the tempo or key, however, it was a commonly used practice). In GE the double bar line was arbitrarily changed to a repeat sign. It is not certain whether it is a revision or a mistake caused by a misinterpretation of the manuscript. The change, depriving the repetition of the exposition of its opening motif, was adopted in EE2 and in a vast majority of subsequent collective editions. In the main text we give a single line of FE (→EE1), which almost certainly corresponds to the notation of [A]. One can consider an addition of a slur in the L.H. in this place in the proofreading of FE3 to be another argument confirming the correctness of the text of FE – if Chopin had wanted to omit Grave at the repetition, he would have most probably noticed the absence of a repeat sign, necessary in this situation. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Changed phrase length

b. 5

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

in GC (→GE) & EE2

in FE (→EE1)
..

The Chopin  was often misinterpreted by the engravers as  – cf., e.g., the Etude in C minor, Op. 10 No. 4, bar 1. Therefore, it is highly likely to assume that Gutmann reproduced Chopin's autograph correctly, whereas the engraver of FE – not. The inclusion of , valid already from the 2nd quaver, makes the difference between both indications purely theoretical.

 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , fz – f

b. 5

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

 in GC (→GE) & FE

 in EE
..

The sources do not state clearly which quaver is affected by the  sign. One can choose between the 2nd quaver, as it is in FE and as GE interpreted the unclear sign of GC (it could have been assigned to the rest of the L.H., falling on the 2nd quaver or apply it to the 3rd, or even the 4th quaver of the bar), or the beginning of the bar, as EE interpreted the notation of FE. The piano and sound reality make us consider both versions to be possible. In the main text we reproduce the notation of the base source, i.e. FE.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC