{"id":4513,"date":"2017-07-17T07:00:59","date_gmt":"2017-07-17T05:00:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.henle.de\/blog\/en\/?p=4513"},"modified":"2017-07-16T22:49:42","modified_gmt":"2017-07-16T20:49:42","slug":"mozart-piano-variations-k265","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/2017\/07\/17\/mozart-piano-variations-k265\/","title":{"rendered":"B(e) sharp \u2013 what would you play in Mozart\u2019s piano variations K. 265?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Mozart over and over again: In the last blog two weeks ago<\/a>, we discussed a small rhythmic problem in his d-minor string quartet, today the focus is on a questionable accidental in one of his best-known piano works. An interesting client enquiry brought to our attention the following spot in Mozart\u2019s Twelve Variations on \u201cAh, vous dirai-je Maman\u201d K. 265.<\/p>\n

It has to do specifically with the 2nd<\/sup> variation that looks as a whole like this:\"\"<\/a>
\n(Click on image to enlarge)<\/em><\/p>\n

In this variation Mozart contrasts the quiet theme in the right hand with the left-hand\u2019s exuberant 16th<\/sup>-note motion in which lower and upper neighbouring notes are played around the respective main note. In the process the lower neighbouring note is always a minor<\/span> second, that is, there is a half<\/span>-tone step down between the 2nd<\/sup> and 3rd<\/sup> notes in each group of four: c\u2013b\u2013c<\/em>, a\u2013g sharp\u2013a<\/em>, b\u2013a sharp\u2013b<\/em>, f\u2013e\u2013f<\/em>, g\u2013f sharp\u2013g<\/em>, <\/em>and so forth.<\/p>\n

But \u2013 always, really\u2026? No, m. 68 plays a trick on us: the 2nd<\/sup> group reads here c sharp\u2013c sharp<\/em>1<\/sup>\u2013b<\/span><\/strong>\u2013c sharp<\/em>1<\/sup>, so, going down a whole-tone step as an exception. Intention or mistake? Shouldn\u2019t it also consistently be b sharp<\/em>? Is there a sharp missing before the b<\/em>? The resulting false relation b sharp<\/em> in the left hand against the b flat<\/em> in the right hand would be no problem, we can compare, for instance, the same in the next measure, completely analogous to an a sharp <\/em>in the left hand against a flat<\/em> in the right.<\/p>\n

The language in the sources is clear, especially in Mozart\u2019s autograph. It is only frag\u00admentarily extant, but luckily for us contains variation 2 \u2013 without a sharp before the b<\/em>:
\n\"\"
\nK. 265, Autograph (detail)
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

Also, all the printed editions appearing in Mozart\u2019s lifetime (and documenting the great popularity of his composition), consistently notate\u00a0b natural<\/em>, not b sharp<\/em>:
\n\"\"
\nFirst edition by Torricella, Vienna 1785<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"
\nEdition by Artaria, Vienna 1787<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"
\nEdition by Bossler, Speyer 1787<\/em><\/p>\n

And if that\u2019s not evidence enough, let\u2019s consider the 12th<\/sup> variation\u2026 Here Mozart again reverts to the same playing figure in the left hand (now in the 3\/4 time), and m. 308 clearly has the b<\/em>, consistent with all the sources:
\n\"\"<\/a>
\n(Click on image to enlarge)<\/em><\/p>\n

So the b natural<\/em> is philologically watertight, and also none of the modern editions known to me (amongst them also the Neue Mozart Ausgabe, Wiener Urtext and Peters) has seen fit to add a (bracketed) sharp before the b<\/em> or at least a footnote. And yet there remains a hint of doubt, for the b sharp<\/em> sounds unquestionably good and would actually be obvious in the musical context, as described above.<\/p>\n

And what do the interpreters say? A YouTube research yielded in fact some hits in favour of b sharp<\/em> \u2013 amongst the most notable pianists is the delightful Faz\u0131l Say:
\n