Slurs
|
b. 181-184
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The slur of GE must be erroneous; the reason a significant part thereof was overlooked could have been an inaccurate notation of GC – the slur is written so low that it almost touches the R.H. slur in the next line. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Inaccuracies in GC |
||||||||||
|
b. 185-188
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The slurring of particular sources seems to convey Chopin's idea only approximately. In the main text, we suggest an interpretation of the slurs of GC based on the slurs written in a more precise manner in analogous bars 57-60. See also bar 189. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Inaccuracies in GC , Authentic corrections of EE |
||||||||||
|
b. 189-191
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
Adding the beginning here phrase to the previous bar is, according to us, a result of an erroneous interpretation of [A], perhaps written inaccurately or containing corrections impeding the interpretation. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in GC |
||||||||||
|
b. 190-191
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
Providing bar 191 with a separate slur can be an echo of the original slurring (cf., e.g., the slurs in bars 45-48). The notation of GC suggests that the slurs could have been combined by Chopin in [A], which was misunderstood in FE (→EE). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in GC |
||||||||||
|
b. 198-200
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The slurs in GC were corrected, almost certainly by Chopin, who added a clear ending of the slur in b. 198 and a beginning in b. 199; however, he did not delete the fragment of the original, continuous slur (which became superfluous). It is difficult to say whether this was the reason why this correction was not included in GE – according to us, the intention to separate the slurs is unquestionable here. The notation of FE (→EE) is ambiguous – the slur in b. 198 (at the end of the line) suggests continuation; however, there is no doubt that a new slur starts in b. 199. We interpret it literally as separated slurs, yet it is likely that the engraver meant a continuous slur, which, judging from the original version of GC, was probably in [A]. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
