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. 161

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

Third in GC (→GE) & FE2 (→EE,FE3→FE4)

Octave in FE1
..

The version of FE1 is most probably a mistake (corrected in FE2 and subsequent FE), as in GC one can see no traces of corrections in this place.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions

b. 161-163

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

Slurs from 4th crotchet in the sources

Our alternative suggestion – slurs from 3rd crotchet
..

Starting from the second slur in bar 162, the slurring of the sources is compatible with the accents – the accents fall on the beginnings of the motifs separated with slurs. No such compatibility in the case of the second slur in bar 161 and first in bar 162 may be a result of their omission by Chopin, while he was making transition from triplet to phrasing slurs in [A]. Therefore, we suggest a unified phrasing slurring as an alternative to the source version.

category imprint: Interpretations within context

b. 161

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

 on 3rd crotchet in GC (→GE)

 on 4th crotchet in FE (→EE)
..

In the main text we give the pedalling of FE (→EE), compatible with the harmonic narrative and subsequent repetitions of similar figures.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GC

b. 161-164

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

8 different accents in GC

5 different accents in FE

8 different accents in GE

6 short accents in EE1

8 short accents in EE2

8 long accents suggested by the editors
..

The accents in GC are of different length, which, considering the similarity of the motifs, is most probably an inaccuracy. In the main text we adopt long accents, which prevail in the notation. All the versions of the editions are most probably a result of an inaccuracy or revision.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE

b. 161-162

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

d-g in GC & FE1

d-g with tie in GE

c-g in FE2 (→EE,FE3→FE4)
..

The version with d as the lower note of the L.H. dyads in the middle of each of these bars, although seemingly erroneous (cf. an analogous figure at the turn of bar 163), may have occurred in [A] since both the copyist and the engraver of FE1 twice read it this way. The notation in the autograph was possibly unclear here, e.g. as a result of some corrections making it difficult to discriminate between visually similar figures (cf. a mistaken slur in the adjacent figure). Stylistic arguments favour the version with c – repeating the note d results in an irregularity:

  • of voice leading – in bars 161-164 all the other pairs of octaves are accompanied by a parallel voice a third or sixth apart;
  • of pianistic texture – in the remaining L.H. dyads the common notes are always tied.

The tie between both notes d in bar 161 is almost certainly an arbitrary addition by GE.

Therefore, we regard as correct only the version with c introduced into FE2.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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