mUltimate Chopin

Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in GE

b. 211-212

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

 in bar 211 in GC (→GE)

No sign in FE (→EE)

 in bar 212 suggested by the editors
..

The placing of the  sign (diminuendo/long accent) at the end of bar 211 in GC (→GE) is certainly a mistake – cf. bars 212-213, and an inaccurate slurring, e.g. in bars 212-214. We consider the omission of the sign in FE (→EE) to be an error as well. In the main text we shift the sign written in GC to the beginning of bar 212, accordingly with the analogous motives.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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

b. 212-214

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

7 slurs in GC

6 slurs in FE (→EE) & GE2

3 slurs in GE1
..

These bars, as well as a few next ones, are a characteristic example of Gutmann's inaccuracy as a copyist. The slurs are drawn so inaccurately that the engraver of GE1 simply omitted a few of them, not knowing what to do with them. Our suggestion of their interpretation is only a certain idea of the actual notation. We do not try finding sense in this slurring – there is no doubt that Chopin's intention were regular, three-crotchet-long slurs, conveyed by FE (→EE) and correctly interpreted in GE2.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 215-218

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

Slurs of different lengths in GC

7 slurs in FE1 (→FE2)

8 slurs in FE3 (→FE4) & EE

3 slurs in GE1

Slurs of different lengths in GE2
..

Same as in the previous bars, the slurring of GC is very careless in these bars. GE1 printed only three slurs, which was completed in GE2, almost literally reproducing GC. The remaining editions contain correct slurs, only FE1 (→FE2) overlooked the slur at the transition between bars 217 and 218.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 219-221

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

 in GC

 in FE (→EE)

 in GE
..

One  sign in FE indicates that two signs in GC (separated with a transition to a new line) are to be interpreted as a continuous . The notation of GE is certainly arbitrary – erroneous or revised. In GC and GE the dashes marking the range of crescendo from bar 217 are led to the beginning of the  hairpin, in spite of the fact that in each of these sources the signs start in another place.
Due to the relation of the  hairpin with the preceding it cresc. - -, which was overlooked in FE, in the main text we give the ending of the dashes and the hairpin on the basis of GC. According to us, however, the slightly earlier started  sign in FE (→EE) reproduced Chopin's notation probably in a more accurate manner.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 222-224

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

Three long accents in GC

Two long accents in FE

Three short accents in EE

Three different accents in GE

Our variant suggestion
..

The missing accent in bar 223 could be considered to be an inaccuracy of the engraver of FE, if it were not for Chopin proofreading of the analogous fragment of the exposition, in which he removed, among others, the counterpart of the accent (see bars 93-96). On the other hand, the authenticity of three accents of GC does not raise any doubts, whereas the third accent added in EE may come from Chopin. Therefore, in the main text we suggest variant solutions.
All three accents of GC are long and it is in this form that we give them.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE