List of possible errors in

Opus Clavicembalisticum
by Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji

Compiled by Michael Edwards

This page is mainly a list of misprints I believe I have found in the score for Sorabji's massive
piano work Opus Clavicembalisticum. However, I would like to prefix this with a broader discussion of
some of the considerations that I believe a possible new edition of this work will need to take into
account and correct.
This follows now; the list of specific errors I've found follow, preceded by a few explanatory notes
about this list.

Some thoughts on how a new edition might be prepared

Some time after I started preparing this list of errors and put it on my web site, Jonathan Powell, a
pianist who belongs to the Sorabji mailing list I am also on wrote to me and asked me about the new,
corrected edition of Opus Clavicembalisticum that he appeared to believe I was preparing. I am not
preparing such an edition, and have no plans to prepare it, and do not believe I would be even
remotely qualified to do this - so it was apparent that Jonathan Powell had somehow got a mistaken
idea about what I was doing. In fact, preparing the information given on this web page is the only
project I am engaged in related to this composition.
However, this incident did remind me of the fact that, if a new edition were to be prepared, I do
have certain ideas about how this might be done. Although The Sorabji Archive issues copies of the
work, it is clear to me that a new edition would be good thing to have: not only are there many,
perhaps thousands, of misprints in the score, but I also believe there are many other inconsistent and
awkward features of the score's orthography, which cannot exactly be called wrong, but which do (it
seems to me) make the score needlessly difficult to read and play from. Some of my suggestions will
be aimed at removing some of these difficulties, while preserving as far as possible the composer's
intentions, even while changing the way those intentions are notated.
I do not intend to prepare an edition of the score - not only because I do not, as mentioned above,
feel qualified to do so, but also because I cannot spare sufficient time for the thousands of hours' work
I believe it might take to do the job properly. However, if anyone else one day prepares an edition, I
would like to put on record some of my ideas on how this might be done. Perhaps any future editor of
the score will come upon my page (I hope my list of errors will be of use in preparing a new edition),
and he or she might like to read these suggestions and consider whether they might be adopted,
although of course the final decision on this will be up to the editor. (And I have it on good authority
from The Sorabji Archive that no-one is currently (as of October, 2002) preparing a new edition of the
work, or planning to do so - so talk of a possible new edition is, at this stage, purely speculative.)
Clearly an edited version of the work will not be, and cannot claim to be, an urtext - an exact
reproduction of the score as the composer wrote it. So, owing to the difficulties and ambiguities in the
original score, a performing edition will have to quite frankly alter what is written, although I would
hope it would spare no effort to reflect the composer's intentions as closely as possible.
Ideally, such an edition would have end-notes in which every change made will be described, and
the reasons for it explained. This would include not only errors of the sort I have put on this page, but
also other changes to the style of notation intended to make the score easier to read.
It is these possible changes to the notation I want to discuss briefly here, although I am at this time
not going to propose a detailed list of such changes, instance by instance. That would be a large part
of the work of preparing a new edition - a task I said above I could not undertake. (If anyone who
reads this page is considering doing an edition, however, I would be interested to discuss what I say
on this web page with them. My e-mail address is given below.)

1. Change of octave signs adopted by Sorabji

This work makes far more use of extreme registers of the piano than most piano works do, and

many passages seem to cover the entire keyboard all at once. To cope with this, the composer
invented a special notation to indicate octave transpositions of certain passages.
To indicate that a passage in the bass clef was to be played an octave lower, he inserted after the
bass clef the upper-case letter "I", with an arrow head beneath the "I" pointing downwards. (The "I"
probably represents a Roman figure 1, indicating one octave.) To indicate that a passage in the treble
clef is to be played an octave higher, he again used the "I", but this time put an upward-pointing arrow
head above the "I". For some very high passages, he also used the double upper-case letter "II", with
an upward-pointing arrow head, indicating that the passage should be played two octaves higher. (He
didn't use a corresponding "II" for bass passages to be played two octaves lower.)
While this system sounds quite clear and logical on the face of it, I believe it would be worth
considering reverting to the more traditional notation used by most composers: namely to use "8va"
signs or "15ma" signs for one-octave and two-octave transpositions respectively, followed by dotted
lines extending forwards for the actual duration of the passage affected by the sign.
My reason for suggesting this stems from the fact that Sorabji's notation is given, and then,
following that, there is no ongoing visual reminder of the fact that an octave or two-octave
transposition is in force. When you are playing highly complex music often notated on three or four
staves, with maybe two or three of those written in treble clef, it can at times be difficult to remember
which (if any) of those treble staves are transposed, and which played at actual pitch. I don't think
performers need any additional difficulties to cope with in performing this music which can be avoided,
and the dotted lines associated with the traditional notation will ease the mental load the performer
has to bear.
Indeed, where, in treble staves, one-octave and two-octave transpositions occur at the same time
or in quick succession, I would recommend using a different style of dotted line to extend the 8va or
15ma signs. A good system would be to use a heavier type-face for the dotted line extending from the
15ma sign than for that extending from the 8va sign.

2. Reduction of number of staves in some systems

As mentioned above, the music is often notated on three or four staves, sometimes even five.
Simply reading so many staves places an extra mental burden on the player. While I concede that
frequently the texture of the music is so complex as to make this necessary, and cramming the
densely-textured polyphonic lines into fewer staves would make them very cluttered and very difficult
to read (and to distinguish the parts), I do believe at times the parts could be condensed into fewer
staves without loss of clarity, and I believe this would make the music easier to read and to learn at the
piano.
My own piano technique is not even remotely close to being able to perform this music myself, but
I have occasionally tried sight-reading passages at the piano - and there are passages I find almost
unperformable solely because of the number of staves in use, sometimes containing parts that
interlock with one another. I say "solely because of the number of staves" because, in some cases, I
feel I could probably sight-read certain passages were it not for the difficulty of piecing together the
music on different staves that interlock with one another - something I cannot do in real time while
actually sight-reading. If I were to rewrite some of these passages on fewer staves, their complexity
might be sufficiently reduced as to make the music more easily sight-readable (with my technique, in
slow motion).

3. Redistributing notes on the staves

This could be related to the question of reducing the number of staves, but often applies even in
passages where I would not reduce the number of staves.
Every note has to be played either by the right hand or the left hand; but, frequently, the way the
notes are distributed on the staves gives not the slightest clue as to which notes belong to which hand;
and working this out from the notation as given is sometimes very difficult indeed.
Because of the highly varied and constantly changing textures, it would probably be impossible to
rigidly assign to a particular staff notes only played by one particular hand. Nevertheless, I do feel that,
by judicious adjustment of the way notes are distributed to the staves, the notation could at least come
closer to making the assignment of notes to the hands clearer. Of course, one cannot be absolute
about this, because there will frequently be various ways of assigning notes to the hands, and different

performers may find different schemes preferable - but I still feel the notation could correspond more
closely to the likely distribution of notes between the hands. Voices sometimes jump from one staff to
another quite arbitrarily, for no discernible reason, and I can sometimes quite easily see ways in which
this could be adjusted to conform with this suggestion, without any loss of clarity - indeed, I believe,
while enhancing the clarity of the score.
I notice a peculiar mannerism Sorabji often uses in the score which I feel is quite needlessly
complicating, and it is one instance of what I am talking about here. Imagine a passage written on
three staves: the top staff is written in the treble clef, the bottom staff in the bass clef; the middle staff
is currently empty, and may be either treble or bass clef (whichever clef is still in force from a previous
passage on that staff). A contrapuntal line low on the treble staff may, for a few notes, descend just a
few notes below middle C. At the same time, a line high on the bass staff may ascend slightly above
middle C (temporarily crossing the part low on the treble clef just mentioned). What the composer
does sometimes is to briefly write both those parts on the middle staff thus: the treble clef part, when it
goes slightly lower, continues in bass clef on the middle staff, and the higher notes of the bass clef
part are written in treble clef on that same middle staff. The treble clef notes which continue from the
bass-clef staff are low on the staff and have a treble clef placed directly in front of them (positioned on
the staff lower than a treble clef would normally be), while higher up on the staff at the same time, the
bass-clef notes, continuing from the treble-clef staff, are notated, with a bass clef directly in front of
them (positioned on the staff higher than a bass clef would normally be). Often the two clefs on the
middle staff are directly lined up vertically, and for several notes the staff is serving as both a treble
and bass staff.
The meaning of this is clear, in the sense that when you study it, there is no doubt as to the
meaning - but it strikes me as needlessly confusing notation, and yet another avoidable obstacle to
ease of reading the score. (The score is already full enough of difficulties inherent in the music, without
additional ones resulting purely from ill-judged notational habits.) It also makes it very difficult to work
out how the notes on all the staves should be allotted to the left and right hand at that point.
Idiosyncrasies of this sort would often be easily be avoided: for instance, the passages of the sort I
just mentioned often exceed the treble or bass staves they start on only by a few notes, and keeping
them on their respective staves could be achieved by using only one or two leger lines, and the crossovers to the middle staff I just described could be completely and easily avoided. Indeed, some
idiosyncrasies of this sort look to me rather like ad-hoc solutions to notational difficulties that arose,
which Sorabji had not anticipated when starting to write the system of staves and planning how to
distribute the notes on those staves. In effect, it looks as if he ran out of space to accommodate a few
notes here and there, and found a little bit of space on a staff that was empty for the moment, and put
the notes there, combining treble and bass clefs in the way described above.

4. Regularization of stem directions

Normal notational practice specifies that when two voices share a staff, the upper part should be
written with note-stems pointing upwards, and the lower part with stems pointing downwards. Sorabji
frequently neglects this, and has two parts on a staff both pointing up or down - often completely
unnecessarily. I would suggest this be corrected in a new edition.
If there are three or more voices on a staff, then of course two or more of them have to point in the
same direction, and this does not necessarily cause difficulty in reading. But there might be times
when I would want to reassign the directions particular voices point. Due to changing vertical positions
of the voices with respect to each other, it might be necessary to change the stem direction of a voice
at a particular point. Sorabji sometimes does this, but I sometimes feel the points at which such
changes occur could be rearranged to make the overall texture easier to read. Some needless
changes of stem direction in particular voices might also be removed.

5. Regularizing the notation of accidentals

The traditional rule for accidentals in music is that any accidental continues to have force within the
bar in which it occurs, in the same octave. That is, if an F# occurs, all F's on the same line or space
continue to be sharp until the end of the bar, even if they don't have further sharps written in front of
them, unless cancelled by another sign. F's in higher or lower octaves are not affected, and need their
own sharp signs if they are to be sharp also. (If the last note in the bar is an F, and it is tied into the

next bar, then the sharp sign continues to have force into the first note of the next bar, but no further.)
This rule cannot be used in "Opus Clavicembalisticum" in any practical way, because of the fact
that this music is without metre. Although solid and dotted bar-lines are used at long intervals to mark
longer rhythmic or sectional divisions, the music does not have discernible bars in the normal sense.
Without frequent bar-lines to act as delimiters, it is difficult to set a precise and reasonably short scope
that accidentals have force within. But, to avoid ambiguity about accidentals, there must be a
completely unambiguous scope for accidentals.
To deal with this, Sorabji adopts a rule for accidentals that 20th-century composers often use: he
specifies that accidentals shall apply for one note only - and he also adds the additional condition that
when a note is immediately repeated, the accidental continues to have force. This is presumably
designed to avoid the use of repeated accidental signs when a particular note is repeated immediately
several times. The exact rule given by Sorabji (to quote from the score itself) goes thus: "NB.
Accidentals hold good only for notes in front of which they stand with the exception of repeated notes
and tied notes."
I have problems with this rule, largely because the score shows strong evidence that Sorabji did
not actually follow this rule always in notating the score. There are repeated patterns of notes which
are obviously intended to be played the same way several times; but when some of the notes in the
pattern have accidentals, these accidentals are not always repeated in succeeding instances of the
pattern. While the pattern as a whole is repeated, the individual notes affected by accidentals are not
immediately repeated, because other notes come in between them, and the rule as stated by Sorabji
seems clearly to refer only to the immediate repetition of single notes.
It is my belief that the entire score needs to be revised with regard to this rule, and many
accidental signs need to be inserted to indicate necessary inflections of notes and conform with the
rule. I would also want to add cautionary natural signs to indicate probable instances where an
accidental is not intended to continue to have force. While the rule might make these notes natural
anyway (because the note is not repeated immediately after the same note with an accidental), such is
the habit of musicians to consider accidentals to have a scope longer than one note (or immediately
repeated notes) that the tendency to continue to read the note as inflected can be overpowering. As
things stand, Sorabji sometimes provides cautionary natural signs, and sometimes doesn't, in a quite
arbitrary pattern.
Related to this, I might also want to enharmonically respell some notes. While in such chromatic
music it may be unclear what enharmonic spelling would be best or most correct anyway, there are
instances where I feel the current spelling is definitely wrong or awkward, and would benefit from
respelling. For instance, a passage written "A A# A" would probably be better written as "A Bb A";
there are a few passages where double-flats or double-sharps are used quite without logic of any sort;
and, on the other hand, passages where natural notes might, because of the context, be better written
as double-accidentals. (Some may disagree, but if I were sight-reading a passage at the piano, in a
context suggesting, for example, a tonality of G# minor, F# major, or similar keys, and I came across a
melodic line that went "G# G G#", I would actually find this more difficult and disorienting to read than I
would find "G# Fx G#". Many of the wrong enharmonic spellings I feel Sorabji has used are of this
type, although usually more complexly than this simple example I made up.)
Even if all these things are regularized, I still feel the sub-rule about repeated notes not needing a
separate accidental is problematical, and that "repeated notes" needs to be defined much more
closely. Here are some instances of notes where it is not clear (without further definition) whether they
are "repeated notes" which are affected by the rule about accidentals. (I'm not giving examples from
the actual score, but making up the simplest examples possible which illustrate the point being made.)
Suppose we have an F# on the lowest space of the treble staff; and now consider certain notes
that could follow it:
The next note might come after a change to bass clef on the same staff, and might be the F two
leger lines above the staff. It doesn't have an accidental in front of it, but it is the same F in pitch. Does
this count as a repetition of the first F? But it is written on a different position on the staff. Such a note
would need to be defined either inside or outside the scope of "repeated notes".
The next note is another F, in the same space on the same staff; but it is in a different voice.
Does it still count as a repeated note in spite of this?; or do you count only repeated notes in the same
voice?
The next note in the same voice is the same F; but in between the two F's, there is one or more
other notes in another voice on the same staff. Is the second F sharp or natural?
The voice jumps to the next staff up, also a treble staff, and the next note is the same F. Is it
sharp or natural?
Or, for further examples, imagine that the first F# is the high F# three leger lines above the treble

staff:
The note immediately following this is another F, written an octave lower, but affected by an
octave transposition sign. The note pitch is repeated, but it is not at the same written pitch. Does it
count as a repeated note or not?
The second F is also on three leger lines, but affected by an octave transposition sign: it is
written at the same pitch, but sounds in a higher octave. Does this count as a repeated note?
Perhaps the repeated-note rule can be kept, but all doubtful cases such as these should have the
accidental sign repeated for them, or cautionary naturals given if the sharp is not to continue. Definite
rules should be established, explained in notes, and followed, for how to deal with repeated notes in
different voices.
Even so, providing definitions and rules to cover all these ambiguous instances of "repeated" notes
makes the definition of a repeated note more difficult than one might expect. It might be better to
remove the rule about repeated notes altogether, and insist that all notes intended to be sharp or flat,
whether immediately repeated or not, be provided with their own accidentals.
The attempt to exempt repeated notes (however they be defined) is presumably intended to
simplify notation by reducing the number of accidentals that need to be notated; but it's beginning to
look as if an unambiguous definition of "repeated notes", because of the need to include or exclude
dubious cases such as those listed above, will be so complicated that it will in itself place a mental
burden on the performer that will vitiate the intention to simplify matters. Simply making no exemption
at all for repeated notes, and requiring all inflected notes to have accidentals, may be the best way out
of this dilemma. Of course, a clear note should be placed at the start of the score explaining the rule to
be used, whichever one is actually adopted.

6. Clarifying rhythms

There are occasions where the rhythms are extremely complicated; but making this worse is the
fact that sometimes the rhythmic notation of passages is unclear or incorrect, and the exact rhythmic
arrangement of notes is sometimes quite unclear. Or sometimes how one voice fits in rhythmically with
others is unclear. Or notes in two voices on different staves which cover the same horizontal space
within a system add up to a different total note value.
Some of these ambiguities seem to be caused simply by incorrect durations being given to some
notes, or vertical alignment of notes being incorrect; but, in a few cases, the anomalies appear to be
caused by the fact of triplet or other "tuplet" signs being omitted from groups of notes that should have
them. In these cases, judiciously applied tuplet signs would remove the ambiguity, but in extremely
complex rhythms it is far from clear where the tuplet signs need to be placed - the only thing that is
clear is that they need to be applied somewhere to make the various parts add up properly with each
other. Occasionally the vertical placement of notes in different parts, which should indicate which
notes are played simultaneously, is wrong or ambiguous, so that does not always gives obvious clues
about where the tuplet groups are meant to be. (One or two instances of this are discussed in my list
of errors given in detail below.)
I believe that all these things need to be corrected and clarified in a new, corrected edition of Opus
Clavicembalisticum. In my list of errors which now follows, I have suggested possible intepretations for
a few passages of this sort.
That covers the broad areas in which I believe changes could beneficially be made in a new
edition of the score. I might add to the above discussion as and when further thoughts on this occur to
me.
I will now move on to my detailed list of the errors I have so far found in the score.

List of errors: Explanatory notes

This list of errors I've found in the score for Opus Clavicembalisticum by Sorabji is intended to help
in the event of a definitive edition one day being produced of this work, if the editors are able to have
access to this list.
Items were occasionally difficult to describe clearly in words - but if you check them in the score

itself as you read them, I think they should be reasonably easy to follow. The list is designed to be
read in conjunction with the score itself, and will be meaningless to anyone who doesn't have a copy
of the score.
Please note: bars are numbered for each system of the score; dotted bar lines are counted too, not
just solid ones, and partial bars are counted as bars.
Some of the anomalies or possible errors in this list result from grey areas where it is not quite
clear how one should interpret the rule given on the first page: "Accidentals hold good only for notes in
front of which they stand with the exception of repeated notes and tied notes".
The main problems seem to stem from two questions: does this rule apply to repeated notes which
belong to different voices?; is just one intervening note between two repeated notes enough to break
the scope of an accidental? If you take things literally and assume the answers to these questions to
be "yes", "yes", respectively, some of the following comments will show that this itself will lead to
ambiguities, or at least strong ground to wonder if a misprint is present. In other words, the composer
appears at times to assume the answers to the two questions above to be "no". But I will discuss the
details of this on a case-by-case basis in the proper place. See the discussion above for a
consideration of the general factors which might affect one's interpretation of these matters.
My copy of the score is an authorized photocopy done by The Sorabji Archive of a master copy
held by them, and includes handwritten corrections in the composer's own hand. Some of the
anomalies I note below result from the composer's handwriting either being illegible, or being faint - in
my copy, at least.
In the following list, I've marked each item with either an asterisk or a question mark: the asterisk
marks items I feel fairly sure are mistakes; the question mark denotes items where I do not feel sure,
but it seems uncertain enough that it should at least be looked at more closely by an expert to decide.
In referring to musical notes, I do not have musical symbols available for use in this list: therefore I
use the symbol "#" for sharps (as in F#), the letter "b" for flats (as in Bb), "x" for double-sharps (as in
Fx), and "bb" for double-flats (as in Bbb). A note-name without these symbols is always to be taken as
natural (as in D - that is, D natural). If I need to emphasize that a note is natural, as against sharp or
flat, I will say something like "D-nat.", since I cannot even approximate a natural sign with any
characters available to me.

(M.J.E. / Composer Listings / Sorabji / Opus Clavicembalisticum Errors)

Michael Edwards,
Victoria, Australia.
E-mail me about this music.

NOTE:
Click here if you need an explanation for the strange appearance of the e-mail address which will
appear when you click on the e-mail link, or if you don't know what you need to do to make the e-mail
address work properly.

List of errors

PARS PRIMA
I. Introito

* p. 5, system 2, bar 1:
Error: In the second group of semiquavers, the last note should be Bb, not Eb.
Reason: By analogy with the identical groups before and after.
* p. 6, system 2, bar 2, 3rd stave:
Error: In the second-last group of semiquavers, 3rd chord, the E should probably be natural.
Reason: Eb doesn't make sense enharmonically, and the context seems to suggest parallel 2ndinversion major triads.
* p. 6, system 4, bar 1, 2nd stave:
Error: Two crotchets before the end of the bar, this stave should have a treble clef inserted.
Reason: That would continue the pattern of the left hand paralleling the right an octave lower.
* p. 6, system 4, bar 2, 2nd stave:
Error: In the second-last group of semiquavers, the last note Ab should probably be Bb.
Reason: Considering that this voice follows the one above in parallel 15ths, Bb would obviously fit
in better.
? p. 7, system 1, bar 1, 3rd stave:
Error: In the second-last crotchet (the last group of 4 semiquavers), first chord, the G possibly
should be natural, yet taking the accidentals rule literally it would be read as a G#.
Reason: I don't feel sure of this, actually - but G-nat. seems to fit the context better harmonically,
and it seems uncertain enough to be looked into.
? p. 7, system 3, bar 2, 3rd stave:
Error: Although the Bs are not immediately repeated, and therefore, according to the composer's
note at the beginning of the score, not governed by the same accidental, I presume they are all meant
to be Bb. But the Bb's in the 2nd and 4th septuplet groups do not have flat signs.
Reason: I feel slightly less than certain of this one, actually, but it seems possible that the left
hand is intended to be underpinned by Bb- major harmony, with other elements introduced at the end
of each septuplet.
? p. 7, system 4, 2nd stave:
Error: Left hand, first group of semiquavers, 4th note: Although the E has no accidental, and
therefore would be taken as natural, it seems possible to me that it may be intended as an Eb.
Reason: Eb-minor harmony immediately before this suggests it; but it could just as easily be an Enat. to fit in with the following A-minor harmony.
? p. 7, system 4, 2nd stave:
Error: 4th crotchet chord in left hand should possibly include D#, not D.
Reason: The context suggests major and minor triads, not diminished ones, and D# would give a
G#-minor triad. But I feel less sure of this one, because a diminished triad did occur in the right hand a
bit earlier.
II. Preludio Corale
? p. 8, system 4, bar 1, 2nd stave:
Error: Possibly the F should be sharp.
Reason: This would agree with the left hand, and it seems likely that if F-nat. had been intended, it
would be have been written as E#. But maybe not; I feel less certain about this possible error.
* p. 8, system 4, at very end:
Error: In my copy of the score, the very end of the system is clipped off by a tiny fraction of an
inch, and therefore it is uncertain whether a bar-line should appear here or not, and whether it should
be dotted or solid.
Reason: The music's texture changes obviously at this point, so a bar-line seems possible; the
previous system's bar-line is also partially clipped in my copy, although still visible at the top.
* p. 9, system 2, bar 1, 3rd stave:
Error: The low Bb octave halfway through the bar should be a minim, not a crotchet.
Reason: Obviously it takes a minim to reach the next octave to which it is tied.

? p. 10, system 3, bar 1, 3rd stave:

Error: The composer has handwritten in a correction, but it is not quite clear what he intended by
it.
Reason: The handwritten addition looks like a sharp sign preceded by a letter which might be F yet it is placed right next to the E in the bass staff, and there is no reason to think that E should be
sharp. Perhaps the "F#" is referring to the B-minor triad in the staff above (2nd staff).
* p. 10, system 4, 3rd stave:
Error: At the very end of the stave, a crotchet rest is obviously missing.
Reason: Compare with right hand.
? p. 12, system 3, bar 2, 2nd stave:
Error: In the middle of the bar, above the gap between the 3rd and 4th quintuplet groups in the
bass staff, there are three chords for r.h., l.h., and r.h. respectively, and they all include the note D. It is
unclear how many of them are intended to be flat and how many natural.
Reason: Db appears immediately before and is not cancelled; but the lower D-nat. would not be
flat under the accidental rule given by the composer, which suggests it might be natural, which in turn
suggests that some of the higher Ds might also be natural, in spite of the accidental rule.
* p. 12, system 4, bar 1, 3rd stave:
Error: At the very beginning of the bar, the first demisemiquaver Db looks as if it may be intended
as Eb.
Reason: This would fit the whole-tone progression of the first few notes in the left hand, and avoid
the anomaly of C# followed by Db, which doesn't make sense enharmonically. Compare with the
similar situation half a bar later, where the same notes occur, although this time the second note is
written as D#, not Eb.
? p. 13, system 3, bar 1, 3rd stave:
Error: In the first semiquaver triplet, the 2nd and 3rd notes consist of the repeated chord B-G.
Possibly it should include a D, completing the triad.
Reason: Looking later in the figuration, where the chord recurs it always includes the D. In the
second ascending group of figuration, based on different harmony, the chord is complete each time,
and does not leave out a note in the first triplet.
? p. 13, system 3, bar 1:
Error: There is a series of semiquaver triplets based on 3rd- inversion G-dom.-7 chords, rising
octave by octave, written as if for the two hands playing alternate triplets. (No notes are specifically
assigned to either hand, but it looks as if this was intended to be done, except possibly for the final
triplet, which would be inconveniently high for the left hand.) The chord is split into two portions each
time, with just the F being played first, then the G-major triad. Sometimes the F is played once and the
triad twice within the triplet, and sometimes the F twice and the triad once. But these two patterns
alternate irregularly, as if one or more triplets may have been written wrongly.
If you look at the second half of the same bar, you have a similar pattern of ascending triplets, this
time based on an Eb-minor-7th chord, with a similar alternating pattern of either the single note or the
chord being repeated, as before.
Reason: It looks possible at least that the two types of triplet pattern just described are intended to
alternate; but they don't do so regularly in either half of the bar; moreover, the pattern, irregular as it is,
is not the same in the two halves of the bar. Perhaps it was so intended by the composer; but
irregularities of this sort at least make one suspect a misprint.
? p. 13, system 3, 3rd stave:
Error: In the last of the crotchet chords with fermatas, following the rule about accidentals, the G
should be sharp. But G-nat. seems likely to have been intended.
Reason: The context seems to suggest G-nat., continuing the pattern of major or minor triads (not
augmented).
? p. 13, system 3, 3rd stave:
Error: In the last chord before the upward quaver run, left hand, maybe the F should be sharp, as
suggested by the rule about accidentals and repeated notes.
Reason: My doubt stems from the fact that, although the passage seems to include cautionary
repetitions of accidentals, it lacks one here. Harmonically, either way seems about equally plausible;

and there do not seem to be any contrapuntal clues that would give preference one way or the other.
* p. 13, system 4, bar 2, 3rd stave:
Error: Probably the first note (in octaves) of the last group of semiquavers should be Eb.
Reason: This avoids repeated notes, which do not occur elsewhere in the downward run.
* p. 17, system 1, bar 1, 2nd stave:
Error: In the 3rd-last tremolo crotchet group, the D should be Db.
Reason: This would continue the pattern through that whole tremolo passage. The tremolo
obviously has the right hand continue what the left hand was doing in the previous crotchet tremolo,
and the D was Db there.
* p. 17, system 1, bar 1, 3rd stave:
Error: In the very last chord, perhaps a C# should be included, added to the notes already there.
Reason: The preceding tremolo's notes all seem to be tied into the chord, and only the C# is
missing. The omission seems more likely to be unintentional than deliberate. (The doubled A a third
lower, however, should not be taken for the missing C#'s notehead wrongly dropped into the A
position. In reality, one A is Ab and the other Ab, in spite of the lack of accidentals in front of the
doubled A, because the preceding tremolo has all its notes tied into this chord, and that includes both
an Ab and an A-nat.)
III. Fuga I
* p. 29, system 2, bar 1, 4th stave:
Error: In the lowest voice, the 3rd long note should have a natural sign in the lower octave.
Reason: This would agree with the natural sign in the upper octave, and a false relation doesn't
seem to be intended here. This would make the motif agree with the bass line at the very top of this
same page, which would eliminate the possibility of considering both notes of the octave to be A#.
IV. Fantasia
? p. 35, system 4, bar 2, 3rd stave:
Error: In the second semiquaver group, maybe the 2nd note, B, should be a D of some kind
(natural or sharp), or perhaps an E or F.
Reason: My only reason for suggesting this is that it would make the shape of the semiquaver
group better fit the surrounding ones. The B appearing in two octaves strikes me as a slight anomaly.
V. Fuga a Due Soggetti
* p. 58, system 3 at end, all staves:
Error: This system is quite illegible owing to dozens of handwritten markings entered by the
composer correcting what is printed, and rendering both the print and the handwritten additions mostly
illegible.
Reason: Obvious: it cannot be read. Does a clearer, correct version of this passage exist?
PARS ALTERA
VI. Interludium Primum (Thema cum XLIX Variationibus)
* p. 74, system 2, bar 2, 3rd stave:
Error: Near the beginning of the bar, the flat sign is missing from the top Bb.
Reason: The bottom B is Bb, and the whole context suggests that a false relation is not intended.
While it is possible that both notes of the octave were intended to be B-nat. this seems unlikely, for two
reasons: a wrongly omitted flat sign seems more likely than a wrongly inserted one; and an
examination of the corresponding notes in further figures of the same type suggests Bb because that
would make a chromatic scale rising upwards through successive recurrences of the figure.
* p. 86, system 3, bars 1-2, 2nd stave:
Error: Clearly there should be a treble clef just before the bar- line.
Reason: The following passage seems nonsense if read in the bass clef. Further confirmation of

this is given by a motif which continues from there into the top stave, which is treble. If that isn't reason
enough, the passage would be unplayable if the bass clef continued, because the two hands would
seriously clash with each other physically.
* p. 95, system 3, bar 1, 2nd stave:
Error: In the group of three notes immediately after the second treble clef and "I" symbol, perhaps
the quaver should be a semiquaver.
Reason: This would fit in with the left-hand pattern in that passage, and make all groups the same
in duration. Also, only this way would the left-hand part add up to the same note value as the righthand tremolo it is set against. (How on earth does one play those tremolos? They look unplayable to
me - and my hands are reasonably large, too.)
* p. 96, system 3, bar 1, 2nd stave:
Error: The very first chord is a cluster. It is unclear whether the sharp and flat sign both appearing
before the E are a misprint, or whether it is intended to convey that both E# and Eb should be played.
Or perhaps the sharp sign really belongs to the F, although it appears in the E space.
Reason: In a case like this, where two E's occur with different inflections, I would expect the note
E to be written twice to make that clear, and to put each accidental before its note - or at least to have
both the accidentals together before the duplicated note head.
VII. Cadenza I
* p. 101, system 1, 3rd stave:
Error: The tied chord near the end of that stave should be Bb Eb G, not Bb D G as written.
Reason: It is tied from a chord in the 2nd stave, which is an Eb- major triad.
VIII. Fuga a Tre Soggetti
* p. 109, system 4, bar 3, 3rd stave:
Error: Almost half-way through the bar, the lowest note is written as a 10th, F-A. It probably should
be an octave, A-A.
Reason: An octave appears to be intended here. The F shown is a note that doesn't even exist on
most pianos, and a 10th interval makes no contrapuntal sense here, either, in a passage where this
voice is otherwise composed of octaves (and the odd single note).
PARS TERTIA
IX. Interludium Alterum (Toccata. Adagio. Passacaglia cum LXXXI Variationibus)
Toccata
* p. 142, system 2, bar 1, 1st stave:
Error: The treble clef should have an "I" octave transposition indicator after it.
Reason: This would maintain continuity from the same voice in the preceding bar, and prevent a
clash between the two hands in the same register.
* p. 142, system 2, bar 2, 2nd stave:
Error: In the third quintuplet, the first note (the lower of the double note) should perhaps be E, not
D.
Reason: This would maintain the octaves in the first note of each quintuplet, which seem to form a
voice of their own, even though they are not given separate note stems.
* p. 142, system 2, bar 2, 2nd stave:
Error: In the 6th-last group of semiquavers (the groups taken according to the beaming), the last
semiquaver is a double note G-F#. Below that there is a composer's correction which is not quite
legible: I can't tell whether he has written F# or G#.
Reason: Clearly this passage is ambiguous in intent. F# certainly seems more likely, given the
pattern of octaves alternating with unisons.
Adagio

? p. 150, system 2, bar 2, 3rd stave:

Error: In the third of those chorale-like chords, perhaps all the C's should be natural, even though
one of them is by implication sharp (because it is an immediately repetition of a C#). If it is really
intended to be A major in the left hand, and F major in the right, cautionary naturals in the right hand
would make this unambiguous.
Reason: The context seems to suggest to me a slight preference for the left hand being A minor,
but the edge is slight, and A major would seem almost as likely. At any rate, my feeling is that the
ambiguity is sufficient to suggest a cautionary accidental, whichever it should be.
Passacaglia cum LXXXI Variationibus
* p. 157, system 2, bar 1, 2nd stave:
Error: At the very beginning of the system, the rhythmic distribution is not clear. Are the three
demisemiquavers a triplet, or just an irregular group of three (non-triplet) demisemiquavers?
Reason: In neither case would the notes add up to the crotchet value they are set against in the
bottom voice. Possible readings would include: make the three notes a semiquaver triplet; insert a
demisemiquaver rest above the crotchet in the left hand; insert a semiquaver rest and make the three
notes a demisemiquaver triplet.
* p. 157, system 3, bar 1, 3rd stave:
Error: About half-way along the system, there is a quaver rest and three notes bracketed with the
indication "4=3". But they are aligned wrongly with respect to the right-hand notes.
Reason: The 1st note should come half-way between the r.h. B and A, the 2nd half-way between
the first two r.h. G#'s, and the 3rd half-way between the r.h. B-G# and G-nat.
* p. 157, system 4, bar 1, 2nd stave:
Error: Of the first 4 B's, it is not quite clear how many of them should be Bb.
Error: If the rule about accidentals governing repeated notes applies to repeated notes in a
different voice, then the first four should be flat, counting the grace-note too - but then what about the
5th note, an octave higher, which looks like it's meant to be the higher octave of the same note?
Taking it literally, you would have an augmented octave going from the grace- note to the higher note;
but cautionary accidentals would remove any doubt.
* p. 157, system 4:
Error: The rhythmic distribution of notes in this system is clearly wrong, although it's difficult to say
exactly what is wrong.
Discussion: The rhythmic distribution of this system is very difficult to decipher, and this is the
most complex area of contention I have so far found in the score. I realize the rhythm is inherently
intricate, but, even allowing for that, I could only make sense of it by assuming that a couple of triplet
indications were omitted or wrongly placed, and that one septuplet indication is wrong. My putative
modifications to this passage would be, going in order from left to right in the system:
1. The septuplet "rest-B-C-D-F-G-B" should be a sextuplet, with the rest belonging to the previous
rhythmic division.
2. C-C#-C# semiquavers: insert triplet sign.
3. In the lowest voice, starting underneath the G# dotted minim, the group "quaver rest,
demisemiquaver sextuplet (B-A-G-F-E-Eb, occupying the time of a semiquaver)" should be bracketed
and a triplet sign added. It matches the right-hand group "semiquaver rest, B, B (two
demisemiquavers), C-F#-G (semiquaver)", which already has a triplet sign. Of course it might be
possible that neither of these groups should have a triplet; but in that case the total of all notes from
the G# dotted minim onwards don't add up to a dotted minim, even though they are matched exactly
against that dotted minim, and it would be impossible to make the notes and rests add up properly
without postulating all sorts of additional triplet groups without any warrant. This seems the solution
that makes the fewest postulations.
One problem remains: that is the quintuplet which forms the last rest and notes on the 2nd stave,
which looks as if it has been dropped in there out of the blue, and is difficult to relate to all the other
notes (rhythmically, that is, although it clearly belongs to the top voice in terms of melodic shape). I
think we have to assume that the top voice here temporarily splits into two voices which then merge
again after the quintuplet. This quintuplet occupies the time of one quaver, and it therefore seems
clear to me (after much study) that the semiquaver rest which begins the quintuplet should be

positioned a bit earlier, so that it is lined up directly underneath the last A-C#-G in the top stave. The
semiquaver rest in the top stave coming after the A-C#-G should therefore be positioned half-way
between the Eb and E in the quintuplet.
I realize I'm being a bit speculative here: but these assumptions I've made are the simplest way
(making as few assumptions as possible) I can make rhythmic sense of the passage. I wonder what
someone more expert than myself thinks about this.
* p. 167, system 1, bar 1, 2nd stave:
Error: In the 4th note of the voice in chords (containing the passacaglia theme), probably the top F
should be sharp.
Reason: It would agree with the lower octave in that voice, and also conform to the passacaglia
theme.
? p. 167, systems 2 and 3, 1st stave:
Error: There are two C#'s which go above the top note of the piano.
Reason: The note in question is not found on a standard piano. Could there be some mistake
here? - or did Sorabji write the composition for a piano with extended compass? (I believe they exist,
although I've never seen nor heard one.)
* p. 171, system 2, bar 2, 1st stave:
Error: There seem to be a number of anomalies here. The second chord looks wrong to me
somehow, although I can't quite say why I think that. Is it possible the accidentals are before the wrong
notes?
Discussion: I suppose the Cb throws me, where I would have expected a B-nat. Also, the top E is
not to be found on any pianos that I know of (unless there are ones that go higher than the usual top
C). Is it possible the chord is intended to be C-Fb-Ab-C? This would be more easily stretchable in a
position where there would be little time to spread a 10th. This would also seem to fit better with the
first chord (C-Ab-C). The third chord (tied) is C-C-E-Cb-E, which doesn't match the preceding, either.
Perhaps it is meant to be C-Ab-C-Ab-C?
My reasoning on all these points is tenuous; but the number of ambiguities suggests that perhaps
this entire passage needs to be checked with the manuscript, and/or referred to Sorabji experts. It
definitely seems wrong to me, though.
Also, unconnected with this, but in the same location, the dots seem to be missing from the portion
of the third chord whose stem points downwards. (It seems reasonable to at least speculate that the
entire chord is meant to have the same duration.)
* p. 171, system 2, bar 2, 3rd stave:
Error: In the very first chord, the top note E is notated as a minim, stemmed as the top note of a
large chord, all of whose other notes have dots. However, it and the E an octave below that should
probably be stemmed sepately from the rest of the chord, and turned into an octave crotchet. Also, the
lower E is marked as E#, almost certainly wrongly.
Reason: The E octaves in question are part of the passacaglia theme, and the E at this point in
the theme is a crotchet. This is the reason I suggest the lower E should be divested of its sharp sign.
* p. 175, system 3, bar 1, 2nd stave:
Error: In the second-last quaver of the bar, there is an A in the sextuplet which belongs to that
voice that goes up and down all the time. It should probably be a B.
Reason: Compare with the surrounding figures in that same voice.
* p. 176, system 2, bar 1, 1st stave:
Error: In the upward-running figuration at the beginning of the system, there are notes that are
repeated with a single note intervening. The first occurrences of some of these notes have flat signs,
and probably the repetitions are intended to be flat also - but a strict interpretation of the accidental
rule would preclude this, and lead to results that are probably wrong.
Reason: Other repeated notes have the same inflection - namely, natural - and there is no reason
to think the flat notes should be treated any differently. There is, in my opinion, ample evidence in this
score that Sorabji has not himself strictly obeyed the rule he gave about the scope of accidentals.
* p. 176, system 2, bar 1, 4th stave:
Error: There are missing sharp signs for some of the F's near the beginning of the system.
Reason: I assume that all the F's at the beginning are meant to be sharp; the context strongly

suggests this. But a literal interpretation of the accidentals rule (having a scope of one note only,
except when a note is repeated, which I presume to mean "immediately repeated") would make some
of the F's natural. Perhaps a few sharp signs need to be put in front of F#'s that are not immediately
repeated notes.
* p. 177, system 2, bar 2, 3rd stave:
Error: The top note of the minim chord should probably be A.
Reason: There are three reasons why Ab is almost certainly wrong: Ab doesn't fit in with the
passacaglia theme; it doesn't agree with the bottom note of the same chord; and it jibs enharmonically
with the following G# in the same voice (on the next system): i.e., B Ab G# in a single voice just
doesn't make sense enharmonically.
* p. 180, system 1, left margin:
Error: The composer's handwritten correction is not quite legible in my photocopy. If it is legible in
the master copy, perhaps it needs to be traced into it a bit more heavily. (I presume it is F#-A-nat.,
though; but F#- A# seems possible.) (There are a number of other passages too where the
composer's corrections are illegible, or at least uncertain.)
* p. 192, system 2, 2nd stave:
Error: In the second hemidemisemiquaver run in the right hand, the first chord should probably
contain a D#, not an E#.
Reason: A G#-minor triad would fit in with the overall pattern of 1st-inversion minor triads.
* p. 193, system 1, 3rd stave:
Error: In the final hemidemisemiquaver run, in the right hand, the 4th chord should possibly be an
A-major triad, thus requiring a C# (not C-nat.).
Reason: All the surrounding right-hand triads are also major.
X. Cadenza II
XI. Fuga a Quattro Soggetti
XII. Coda Stretta
* p. 245, system 1, bar 1, 3rd stave:
Error: There is a handwritten composer's correction near the beginning of the bar which is not
very clear (at least in my copy). If this is legible in the master copy, perhaps it should be filled in a bit
heavier for future photocopies.
Discussion: It does look as if the unclear handwritten correction might be a treble clef and a bass
clef immediately beneath it, indicating that from that point the stave has shared clefs applying to
different parts (a device found elsewhere in this work also). However, if the stave is considered from
that point to have shared clefs, the passage might make sense only if these two clefs are swapped in
position. The minim and semibreve in the lowest voice would then be read in the treble clef (E and E,
although I also suggest the minim should be an F, to agree with the lower octave on the next stave
down); and the upper voice (two voices for the last crotchet in the bar) would be read in the bass clef.
However, if this interpretation is correct, it takes a bit of guesswork to determine how long the
stave has shared clefs, and at what point a single clef is resumed. But I would suggest that the shared
clefs end at the next bar-line, after which that stave is treble clef only. (Treble clef from that point on
makes the best sense of the intermittent semiquavers that follow on that stave, especially where those
figures change momentarily to the next stave down.
* p. 245, system 1, bar 1, 3rd stave:
Error: The minim E near the beginning of the system, whose stem is joined to a note on the stave
below, should almost certainly be an F.
Reason: See the previous item, where I discuss my reasons for assuming that this note is an E in
treble clef, not a G in bass clef. If we accept this (and nothing else makes any sense here), changing
the E to F would agree with the F in the lower stave that the note is joined to by a single stem.
Preserving the octave fits in contrapuntally with the preceding and following octaves in the same voice.
* p. 249, system 1, beginning of 1st stave:
Error: The treble clef should be followed by the "I" which indicates that the entire stave is played

an octave higher.
Reason: This would fit in with the preceding and following staves, and nowhere is there a "loco" or
"I" to change the octave transposition status of the stave. Moreover, the keyboard layout and melodic
shape of motifs make better sense by assuming the "I" sign to be present.
* p. 249, system 1, beginning of 1st stave:
Error: Probably the ties into the first chord are in error.
Reason: There is nothing for them to be tied from in the preceding bar.
* p. 250, system 1, 4th stave:
Error: In the tied chord in square semibreves, in parentheses, the A should be removed.
Reason: The chord is tied from a chord in the 3rd stave, which does not include that A.
* p. 251, system 1, 3rd stave:
Error: The second chord on that stave is notated as F-A. Probably the notes should be F#-A#.
Reason: The C#-major context seems to require this: C#-E#-G# to F-nat.-A-nat. just doesn't make
sense. Compare with the passage two demisemiquavers later, which goes E-G#-B to A-C#. And
similarly in many of the following demisemiquaver groups.
* p. 251, system 2, bar 2, 5th stave:
Error: The minim chord seems to consist merely of the accumulated notes tied over from the
previous 3 chords. But if you look carefully, a low C and F have been added (the C with a tie leading
into it, even though that tie comes from an E). It is not clear whether these are meant to be struck at
that point, or whether it is a wrongly printed ties-only chord. It seems to me that the C and F should be
deleted, and an E (the one-leger-line E) inserted.
Reason: The C and F make no sense harmonically, and there are no fingers to spare to play them
at that point anyway, owing to the left hand being busy at that moment in other staves.
* p. 252, system 2, bar 1, 4th stave:
Error: A treble clef should be inserted immediately before the first crotchet chord in that stave (and
two tied chords before a bass clef occurs).
Reason: The harmonic sense and keyboard layout precludes the notes being read in the bass
clef.
* p. 252, system 2, bar 1, 3rd and 4th staves:
Error: About three quarters of the way through the bar, in the last chord of the second group of
quintuplet demisemiquavers, it seems to me that the G's should be natural, making a G-major triad;
but the repeated- accidental rule would make the G's flat, which doesn't seem to make enharmonic
sense.
Reason: If they had been intended, I would have expected them to be written as F#'s, making an
ordinary B-minor triad.
? p. 252, system 2, bar 2, 5th stave:
Error: Perhaps the very last chord in the left hand should include B, not B#.
Reason: The context seems to suggest an ending in G# minor (plus a few other notes), not G#
major. But of course this opinion is far from conclusive: it could, I suppose, be a modern version of a
"Tierce de Picardie". What a stunning conclusion the work has!

Afterword
This list was compiled from an earlier list I e-mailed to The Sorabji Archive's curator, Alistair
Hinton, in April, 1999. I have revised it slightly to correct inaccuracies I myself incorporated in my
reasoning; but the list is far from complete, since I have discovered many further errors in the score
which I have not yet included. I hope to do this as time permits - so anyone who happens on this list
who is interested might like to come back every now and then and check for further entries.
But I have to say that I think, in compiling the above list, I have begun a task I cannot possibly

hope to complete. I lack the expertise to finish it, and ultimately I will probably lack the time, too. I
believe the few hundred errors I have found only scratch the surface, and that there are likely to be
thousands of misprints in this score. I could probably spend hundreds of hours discovering and
documenting errors in this score without exhausting them.
I hope this list, by some good fortune, comes to the notice of Sorabji experts, or someone involved
in the production of a definitive edition of Opus Clavicembalisticum. If any such people read this,
please e-mail me if you think the above list will be of assistance in preparing the edition, or if you think,
on the above showing, I have the capacity to be of assistance in any other way - perhaps doing more
error-hunting, or perhaps even proof-reading of a new engraving of this work.
While ultimately time will probably defeat any endeavours on my part to compile a list even coming
close to complete, the time I can dedicate to this task is flexible, and could depend on how useful my
work is. In other words, if I had reliable advice that what I was doing was valuable, I could probably
dedicate more time to it than if I thought I was only duplicating discoveries others more expert than
myself have already made, or could make more easily or quickly, which is a bit the feeling I currently
have. (If any Sorabji experts or editors of his music really feel I have nothing useful to contribute, and
that I am merely duplicating discoveries others have already made, I would appreciate being told this
so that I do not waste time searching the score for mistakes.)
But I would very much appreciate feedback or suggestions from anyone who reads this who is
expert in Sorabji, or involved in producing definitive editions of his music.

Michael Edwards,
Victoria, Australia.
Monday, 10 April, 2000.
E-mail me about this music.

NOTE:
Click here if you need an explanation for the strange appearance of the e-mail address which will
appear when you click on the e-mail link, or if you don't know what you need to do to make the e-mail
address work properly.

NOTE ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THIS PAGE - Tuesday, 5 June, 2001:

This page is incomplete, by the very nature of what it attempts to do: to add to a list of errors in a
musical score progressively as I find them. Please go here for an explanation about the setback that is
responsible for my not completing this page, and why it may never be completed, or why it may
happen only very slowly. Not that this makes any real difference to someone who would like to see the
page complete - but I feel I should at least explain the situation.
I will leave this page here, incomplete as it is, in case the information already written is useful to
some readers researching a topic they may have difficulty finding information about on the Internet.
Given that the score for Opus Clavicembalisticum obviously contains many hundreds or even
thousands of errors, any page attempting to list them will by its nature be an ongoing project with no
definite end. Without doubt, the above list of mistakes does no more than scratch the surface. While I
do not feel able at present to continue searching the score for errors, it is possible I may later be able
to devote more time to it. Feedback from musicians or scholars which confirms that I am not doing this
work uselessly in a wilderness, but that it is, or will be, really useful, might motivate me to devote more
time to it. But at the moment this work, or anything I add to my web site, is having to struggle against
problems of depression and poor concentration that seem to be afflicting me at present.
One last thing: I have managed, since I wrote most of this page, to acquire a copy of John Ogdon's
recording of this work, although my opportunities to listen to it have been limited, owing to not
possessing suitable equipment to play the recording on. Before listening to this, I thought that hearing
Odgon play passages with ambiguous points in them would help me resolve them, help me decide on
a correct reading. In fact, I did not find it at all helpful in the majority of cases. This was largely

because the music is so complexly-textured, so chromatic, and (often) so fast, that it was quite
impossible when following in the score while listening, to tell whether Ogdon played (for example) a
G# instead of a G. In the end I just have to rely on my own musical sense in deciding which reading I
think most likely to be correct. In many cases, I feel completely confident of my claims, they seem so
obvioius; but, in other cases, I admit that the reading I've arrived at is little more than a guess.