b. 219-221
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
One sign in FE indicates that two signs in GC (separated with a transition to a new line) are to be interpreted as a continuous . The notation of GE is certainly arbitrary – erroneous or revised. In GC and GE the dashes marking the range of crescendo from bar 217 are led to the beginning of the hairpin, in spite of the fact that in each of these sources the signs start in another place. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins |
||||||||
b. 219
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
The absence of the c3 note in the 2nd chord is certainly an oversight of the engraver of FE (→EE1) – the note is present in respective bar 31, whereas the recapitulation was most probably not written out in [A]. Similarly in the next bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
||||||||
b. 219
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
As in bar 31, in the main text we suggest an accent in line with the analogous bar 11. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
b. 219
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text we suggest adding staccato signs after analogous bar 91. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
b. 219-220
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The version of GE probably results from a misinterpretation of the notation of GC – in this manuscript, b. 219 ends a great stave, and the slur, due to the discontinuation of ink flow, is poorly visible, hence it seems that it does not go beyond the last crotchet. However, the slur in b. 220 very clearly suggests continuation, which is confirmed by a continuous slur in FE (→EE). category imprint: Differences between sources |