mUltimate Chopin

Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE inaccuracies

b. 5

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

 in GC (→GE) & FE

 in EE
..

The sources do not state clearly which quaver is affected by the  sign. One can choose between the 2nd quaver, as it is in FE and as GE interpreted the unclear sign of GC (it could have been assigned to the rest of the L.H., falling on the 2nd quaver or apply it to the 3rd, or even the 4th quaver of the bar), or the beginning of the bar, as EE interpreted the notation of FE. The piano and sound reality make us consider both versions to be possible. In the main text we reproduce the notation of the base source, i.e. FE.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 16

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

in GC

 in FE (→ EE1)

in GE

in EE2
..

The differences between GC, FE (→EE1) and GE seem to be accidental inaccuracies. The solution we suggest in the main text is an attempt to reconstruct [A] on the basis of the discrepancies between GC and FE. The same range of the  hairpin was introduced in EE2 - probably on the basis of a comparison of FE with GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 45-46

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

2 slurs in GC (→GE)

Slur in FE (→ EE)

Two-bar slur, our alternative suggestion
..

Both versions were created directly on the basis of the notation of [A], hence, unless the notation was unclear, one of the versions is most probably erroneous. To the main text we choose the version of GC, which is devoid of gaps in phrasing. On the other hand, the difference between the versions could have been caused by the ambiguity of the notation of [A] (caused by, e.g. corrections). In such a situation, both GC and FE may correctly convey certain aspects of this notation, which leads to our alternative suggestion, which combines the completeness of the slurring of GC with the continuity of the slur of FE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies

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. 151-152

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

..

In the 2nd half of each of these bars, GC and FE1 (→FE2→FE3) have no naturals. The necessary signs – before a1 and a – were added in GE, FE4 and EE (in EE1 only in bar 152).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC