Pitch
b. 161-162
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The version with d as the lower note of the L.H. dyads in the middle of each of these bars, although seemingly erroneous (cf. an analogous figure at the turn of bar 163), may have occurred in [A] since both the copyist and the engraver of FE1 twice read it this way. The notation in the autograph was possibly unclear here, e.g. as a result of some corrections making it difficult to discriminate between visually similar figures (cf. a mistaken slur in the adjacent figure). Stylistic arguments favour the version with c – repeating the note d results in an irregularity:
The tie between both notes d in bar 161 is almost certainly an arbitrary addition by GE. Therefore, we regard as correct only the version with c introduced into FE2. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions , Errors of GC |
||||||
b. 165
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
FE (→EE) has a cautionary before g2 in the 5th crotchet of the bar. It is hard to state how the difference between GC and FE occurred – the copyist might have simply overlooked this sign or realised that it is superfluous. Moreover, one cannot exclude an addition made to [A] after GC had already been prepared or a mistake of the engraver of FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Cautionary accidentals |
||||||
b. 166
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text we add a cautionary before c2. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||
b. 168
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
It is hard to state whether the added – probably by Chopin – in FE4 was a correction of a mistake or a change of the concept. According to us, the first possibility seems to be more likely. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||
b. 169
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The comparison with GC and later correction in FE2 prove that the version of FE1 is erroneous. The omission of f was probably the reason of an inaccurate shortening of the slur of the grace note. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions |