In the absence of a manuscript document, only the first edition can serve as a source for an Urtext edition (Beethoven most probably had no influence on later editions of the Sonata). This edition brought out by the publisher Mollo in Vienna poses something of a riddle for us in the 1st<\/sup> movement of the Sonata op. 14 no. 2, that, mind you, no matter how it is solved leads to a clearly audible difference in playing the sonata. Here it is:<\/p>\n We\u2019re in the development of the 1st<\/sup> movement. Do you see which enigmatic note I\u2019m talking about? Perhaps you\u2019ve already played the sonata yourself? If so, then you\u2019d have most likely stumbled over the d flat<\/em>2<\/sup>, the 1st<\/sup> right-hand note in the 10th<\/sup> measure of our example. Most, if not all, modern editions print d<\/em>2<\/sup> instead, hence differing from the only source for this work. Doubtless, there are basically three reasons for this: It\u2019s our opinion, however, that there are likewise three reasons not to depart from the source: So, we\u2019ve decided in the music text of our edition to go along with the sole source and publish the d flat<\/em>2<\/sup> with an appropriate footnote. Give it a try! I\u2019ve heard it in concert on a number of occasions by Maestro Perahia. I really like it. How about you?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" For almost ten years now I\u2019ve been working with Murray … Continue reading ![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/de\/files\/2012\/06\/Seite1Mollo-1024x292.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/de\/files\/2012\/06\/Seite2Mollo-1024x143.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n(1) The harmonic progression of the five-measure group from the 1st<\/sup> forte<\/em> is: three measures in A-flat major; one measure, dominant-seventh chord on d<\/em>, one measure diminished seventh chord on f sharp<\/em>. The next five-measure group would accordingly have to begin with three measures in g minor and not have a diminished chord already in the third measure.
\n(2) In the measure with the d flat<\/em>2<\/sup> there is an essential flat sign missing before the b<\/em>1<\/sup>. That\u2019s why
\n(3) the engraver presumably made a mistake (after the page turn) and inadvertently stamped the flat sign a third too high.<\/p>\n
\n(1) In Beethoven\u2019s time it was still not customary to engrave essential accidentals again in the case of note repetition or the repeat of note groups beyond a bar line. Similar situations are very often found in Beethoven\u2019s manuscripts where these accidentals are NOT repeated after the bar line. Thus, it could easily be that also in our case there is no flat sign in Beethoven\u2019s autograph before the b<\/em>1<\/sup> and so the engraver did not engrave it. (In the 3rd<\/sup> measure of the 1st<\/sup> group, for example, the flat sign was missing before the lower e<\/em> in the upper stave.) It just might be that the engraver did not make a mistake, but engraved the measure just as it was in the manuscript.
\n(2) Robert Levin once wrote: \u2018Editors want uniformity, artists love variety.\u2019 \ud83d\ude42 Why in the 2nd<\/sup> group should Beethoven have literally repeated the harmonic progression of the 1st<\/sup> group? Two measures later, in the 5th<\/sup> measure of the 2nd<\/sup> group, he also made a change in comparison to the 1st<\/sup> group!
\n(3) The d flat<\/em>2<\/sup> is definitely not wrong harmonically, only unexpected.<\/p>\n