b. 105
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The arpeggio was most probably overlooked by the copyist. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||
b. 105-107
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The slurs under the notes in GE are certainly an arbitrary addition of the editor. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||
b. 106-107
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
In b. 106 and 107, some or all bottom voice rests were overlooked in various sources: They seem to be the engravers' oversights (in EE and GE, it is also revisions that are likely – cf. b. 115). GC is provided with a detailed two-part notation, which we give in the main text. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE |
|||||
b. 107
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The sharp raising f to f, overlooked in GC, FE1 (→FE2→FE3,EE1), was added in GE, FE4 and EE2. Cf. bar 115. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in GC |
|||||
b. 108
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The slur over the L.H. part, if not overlooked by the engraver of FE (→EE1), could have been added in GC (→GE) by Chopin. The sign was then added in EE2. Similarly in bar 116. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections in GC |