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. 92

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

f2-d3 in GC (→GE) & FE3 (→FE4)

f2-f3 in FE1 (→FE2→EE)
..

The version of FE1 (→FE2→EE) is certainly erroneous – it is proved both by the text of GC (→GE) and the proofreading of FE3 (→FE4). At the same time, it is only FE4 that includes a completely correct text, as FE3 overlooked the  before the corrected note.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Terzverschreibung error , Errors in the number of ledger lines , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 92

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

..

In all sources, there is a cautionary  before f2. In the main text we omit this sign, which is unnecessary in this context. 

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Cautionary accidentals

b. 93

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

..

At the beginning of the bar GC has a C1-E tenth. It is certainly a mistake, which is proved by, among others, the  before the bottom note, which does not make any sense before C1. All the remaining sources include an E1-E octave.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Errors in the number of ledger lines , Errors of GC

b. 93

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

No slur in GC (→GE)

Slur in FE (→EE)
..

There are no reasons to doubt the authenticity of the slur of FE (→EE), although it is not certain whether it was overlooked in GC or added in [A] already after the copy had been prepared.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of GC

b. 93-94

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

Slur in GC, probable interpretation

Slur in FE (→EE)

No slur in GE

Probable slur in [A]
..

The suggested reconstruction is based on a joint consideration of the slurs in the L.H. in GC and FE. Both the copyist and the engraver of FE had in front of them the same Chopin's autograph and it is highly likely that each of them reproduced one part of the slur, which in [A] was divided due to the end of the page (line). It can be assumed that the engraver of FE1 overlooked only a short fragment of the slur in bar 93, whereas the copyist – the slurs in the next three bars. This kind of reasoning is also justified by the adopted interpretation of the unfinished slur of GC (overlooked in GE). According to us, the slur of FE can be considered to be equal, as Chopin could have accepted it in relation to the change of concept of accentuation – cf. bars 222-224.

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

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