Issues : Inaccuracies in GC
|
b. 80
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The interpretation of the top slur in GC is not straightforward. In this rhythmical context, its leading to the final semiquaver seems natural. However, this would produce a concurrence of slurs on that semiquaver, which the notation of GC does not suggest, and what does not occur in any other source. It is therefore possible that the slur has a double meaning – similarly to the category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Inaccuracies in GC , Tenuto slurs |
|||||||||||
|
b. 90
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The notation of accidentals is inaccurate in the majority of the sources, which, however, does not cause any difficulties in the interpretation of the text. In the 2nd half of the bar, GC and FE have only one sign: a category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Omission of current key accidentals , Inaccuracies in GC |
|||||||||||
|
b. 93-94
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The suggested reconstruction is based on a joint consideration of the slurs in the L.H. in GC and FE. Both the copyist and the engraver of FE had in front of them the same Chopin's autograph and it is highly likely that each of them reproduced one part of the slur, which in [A] was divided due to the end of the page (line). It can be assumed that the engraver of FE1 overlooked only a short fragment of the slur in bar 93, whereas the copyist – the slurs in the next three bars. This kind of reasoning is also justified by the adopted interpretation of the unfinished slur of GC (overlooked in GE). According to us, the slur of FE can be considered to be equal, as Chopin could have accepted it in relation to the change of concept of accentuation – cf. bars 222-224. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in GC |
|||||||||||
|
b. 93-96
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The original accentuation, which, together with the slurs restores clear, triple grouping of chords after bars 91-92, prevailing in bars 81-90, was changed by Chopin in the proofreading of FE3 (→FE4). The new concept is an evident improvement – it shapes a four-bar-long crescendo wave with distinctly marked two crests and at the same time it delays the return of denser accentuated motifs until the entrance of the final phrase of the exposition in bar 97. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Long accents , Authentic corrections of FE , Inaccuracies in GC |
|||||||||||
|
b. 104-105
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The double bar line is most probably a routine addition of the copyist. Its absence in GE is most probably a mistake. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in GC |
2 as well as pertains to the suspension in the accompanying voices.
before the last chord in the R.H., whereas in 
