Issues : Inaccuracies in GE
|
b. 34-36
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The accents in these bars are in GE extended to form category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 49
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text we give the pedalling of GC. GE1 reproduced it inaccurately, which was corrected in GE2, yet then repeated in EE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 66-67
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The slur starting in bar 67 is written in GC in an inaccurate manner, so one can assume that it embraces the first chord of the bar too. The clear ending of the previous slur over this chord indicates, however, that the new slur is probably supposed to start from the 2nd chord, as it was clearly marked in analogous bar 195 in all sources. In GE the previous slur was ended in bar 66, whereas the new was started from a category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in GC |
||||||||
|
b. 69-72
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The premature ending of the dashes is certainly an error of GE1. According to us, also in the case of FE (→EE) the engraver's inaccuracy seems to be the most likely the reason of the absence of the dashes – they were led only to the end of the line of the text (cf., e.g., the Etude in C minor, Op. 25 No. 12, bars 33-39). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 70-71
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
Both the earlier division of the slurs in GE1 and the later beginning of the slur in EE are undoubtedly misreadings of their Stichvorlagen. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , GE revisions |
in 
hairpins. This inaccuracy could have resulted from Chopin's placing them – in contrast to bars 25-32 – below the notes, apparently associating them with neighbouring 
signs. The sign in bar 35, omitted in 
2 at the beginning of bar 67, which is certainly an arbitrary interpretation of the notation of 
