Slurs
|
b. 140-141
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
The range of the slurs in GC is unclear due to the nonchalant way of their notation, as well as due to the transition into the new line of the text (from bar 141). We consider the division of the slurs at the bar line to be the literal interpretation, as at the beginning bar 141 does not include the ending of the previous slur. Such divided slur is also in EE, based on the base text, in which the slurs were most probably added by Chopin (in this fragment). Therefore, we give the version in the main text. According to us, however, the interpretation of the slurs of GC with division after the 1st crotchet in bar 141 is more justified. The slur of GE is rather an emergency option, not determining the phrasing, than an attempt to reproduce the notation of GC. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GC , Authentic corrections of EE |
||||||||
|
b. 145-147
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
Both notations of the slur in bars 145-146 – GC (→GE) and FE3 (→FE4) – mean generally the same, yet the notation used in FE accentuates the necessity of holding the full rhythmic value of the chord in bar 146, which is often not observed in the case of the last note under the slur. Chopin would often use this notation, cf., e.g., 1st mov., bar 176, the Etude in A minor, Op. 25 No. 4, bar 50, in C category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of EE , Tenuto slurs |
||||||||
|
b. 148
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
The inaccurately vertically written notes result in GC not being entirely clear where the slur over the part of the R.H. is supposed to reach – the 2nd or the 3rd beat of the bar. In the main text we adopt the first possibility, in which the relation to the progression of the bottom voice is more significant. In the editions it was interpreted differently, which is also justified, particularly if we take into account the tenuto slur, added by Chopin in the proofreading of FE3 in bar 146. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 158-159
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
On the basis of GC and FE it is hard to imagine what range and meaning the slur under the bottom voice of the R.H. is supposed to have. The sign in GC seems to be an articulation motivic slur starting under e category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GC |
||||||||
|
b. 162-163
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
In the main text, we give the slurs of GC (→GE). Adopting the version with shorter slurs in bars 81-87, one has to adopt the variant without slurs here. category imprint: Differences between sources |
minor, Op. 25 No. 7, bars 22, 24, 28 and 30 or the Mazurka in B minor, Op. 33 No. 4, bars 2, 4 and analog.
1 in 
1, however, it is unknown which note it is supposed to reach – d
