mUltimate Chopin

Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

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. 91

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

Wedge in GC

No mark in FE (→EE) & GE1

Dot in GE2
..

The wedge in GC is very clear, so both the omission of the sign in GE1 and the fact of replacing it with a dot in GE2 are surprising.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Wedges

b. 91-92

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

Slur from bar 91 in GC, FE (→EE) & GE2

Slur from bar 92 in GE1
..

The fact that the slur in GE1 begins later must be a mistake of the engraver; he omitted the part of the slur falling on b. 91, which ends the line. The error was corrected in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

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. 93-94

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