mUltimate Chopin

Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 69-72

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

Dashes in GC & GE2

No dashes in FE (→EE) & GE1
..

The premature ending of the dashes is certainly an error of GE1. According to us, also in the case of FE (→EE) the engraver's inaccuracy seems to be the most likely the reason of the absence of the dashes – they were led only to the end of the line of the text (cf., e.g., the Etude in C minor, Op. 25 No. 12, bars 33-39).

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 74-75

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

Continuous slur in GC (→GE)

Separate slurs in FE (→EE)
..

It is difficult to determine what led to the difference in slurring between GC (→GE) and FE (→EE). The notation of [A] could have been ambiguous, e.g. between the lines. In the main text we give the continuous slur of GC, since there is no visible musical reason to disrupt this rhythmically homogeneous, smoothly descending sequence.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Embracing slurs , EE inaccuracies

b. 90

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

..

The notation of accidentals is inaccurate in the majority of the sources, which, however, does not cause any difficulties in the interpretation of the text. In the 2nd half of the bar, GC and FE have only one sign: a  before the last chord in the R.H., whereas in FE it restores f2, while in GC – probably erroneously – it raises g2 to g2. GE added to the  written in GC another one, raising b2 to b2. Only EE includes all necessary signs. Moreover, all sources include a superfluous  before d1 in the 3rd crotchet in the L.H. In the main text, we omit this sign, in turn, we add a cautionary  before f3 (in the last chord).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Omission of current key accidentals , Inaccuracies in 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

b. 101-104

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

..

The pedalling of the last two chords of the exposition is marked in the sources inaccurately or erroneously. In FE there is no  sign in bar 101. In GC (→GE1) the change of pedal is written only at the transition between bars 103 and 104. FE and GE1 do not include any  sign in bar 104, whereas in GC and EE the asterisk is at the end of the 2nd volta, while in GE2 at the end of the first one.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Errors of GC