Issues : Errors of GC
|
b. 7
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
No category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of GC |
||||||||||||
|
b. 7-8
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt III
..
It is hard to state how the difference in the rhythm on the 1st beat of the bar occurred. The dotted rhythm in GC (→GE) seems to be a mistake of the copyist – the text is written uniformly, moreover, only bar 7 is written out with notes, as a result of which one, possible, mistake could have contributed to the change of the rhythm in both bars. On the other hand, Chopin's proofreading cannot be entirely excluded (a similar situation appears in Allegro de Concert, Op. 46, bar 17). In this situation, in the main text we give the version of FE (→EE), compatible with the unquestionable rhythm of analogous bars 11-12. Rhythmic variants of this type are to be found in numerous works by Chopin. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of GC , Dotted or even rhythm |
||||||||||||
|
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
No accents in GC (→GE) is almost certainly an oversight of the copyist, who overlooked all signs between the staves in bars 7-13. The length of the 1st accent is confirmed by the notation of FE in bar 196, being a repetition of bar 8, and clearly longer signs in similar bar 28. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors of GC |
||||||||||||
|
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt IV
..
In GC the 10th quaver in the L.H. is a g. The mistake was corrected in GE, probably on the basis of analogy to the previous, similarly constructed triplets in this bar and in bar 6. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Errors of GC |
||||||||||||
|
b. 9-10
|
composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor
..
Both the absence of the slur in GC (→GE1) and the one-bar slur of FE have to be considered as an inaccuracy of notation. In turn, the slur of EE is most probably authentic and we adopt it as the base of the main text. However, we shift its beginning in such a way that it included also the grace note, as it can be seen in analogous situations in GC (bars 1 and 45) and FE (bar 45). It cannot be excluded that the copyist confused the staves and wrote the slur of the L.H., running from the beginning of the bar, over the R.H. A two-bar slur was added also in GE2 (→GE3), together with a conventional slur of the grace note. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Errors of GC |
in 
