![](/build/images/logo_left-en.png)
![](/build/images/pl-button.5cab5de0.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button.d3d09842.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button-en.5098433b.png)
Issues : Inaccuracies in GC
b. 208-209
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
The shorter slur of GE is, according to us, inaccurate, which can be partially attributed to the sweeping slur of GC. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in GC |
||||||||||||
b. 232
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
In GC and FE1 (→FE2→FE3) there is no category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in GC |
||||||||||||
b. 259-260
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
In the main text we give a pedalling based on GC, in which we move the category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in GC |
||||||||||||
b. 263-264
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II
..
It is not certain who interpreted Chopin's intention in [A] more accurately – the copyist in GC (→GE) or the engraver of FE (→EE). According to us, an earlier change of pedal in FE seems to be less likely. The notation of GC may be interpreted in three ways, out of which the literal interpretation, adopted in GE2, is dubious from the pianistic point of view. The remaining two – given in GE1 and our main text – are natural from the pianistic point of view and can be considered to be equal. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in GC |
||||||||||||
b. 265-266
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GC |