mUltimate Chopin

Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Long accents

b. 80

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

 in GC

 in FE

No sign in GE

Long accent in EE
..

Each of the three source versions of the range of the  sign may correspond to Chopin's intention. According to us, the sign has a nature of a long accent, emphasising both the dynamic relation of the delay of d2 and its resolution c2. Therefore, in the main text we give a sign on the basis of FE, which presents this double sense in the clearest manner. The absence of a hairpin in GE is certainly a result of an oversight (cf. the note on the tie).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in GE

b. 87-88

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

3  signs in GC, FE (→EE) and GE2

No signs in GE2
..

The missing signs in GE1 are probably an oversight by the engraver, corrected in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 93-96

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

6 long accents in GC & FE1 (→FE2)

2 long accents in FE3 (→FE4)

6 short accents in EE

6 marks in GE
..

The original accentuation, which, together with the slurs restores clear, triple grouping of chords after bars 91-92, prevailing in bars 81-90, was changed by Chopin in the proofreading of FE3 (→FE4). The new concept is an evident improvement – it shapes a four-bar-long crescendo wave with distinctly marked two crests and at the same time it delays the return of denser accentuated motifs until the entrance of the final phrase of the exposition in bar 97.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Long accents , Authentic corrections of FE , 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. 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