Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
|
b. 45-46
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
Both versions were created directly on the basis of the notation of [A], hence, unless the notation was unclear, one of the versions is most probably erroneous. To the main text we choose the version of GC, which is devoid of gaps in phrasing. On the other hand, the difference between the versions could have been caused by the ambiguity of the notation of [A] (caused by, e.g. corrections). In such a situation, both GC and FE may correctly convey certain aspects of this notation, which leads to our alternative suggestion, which combines the completeness of the slurring of GC with the continuity of the slur of FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies |
||||||||
|
b. 47-48
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
No category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 49
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The arpeggio sign is already present in FE1, based directly on [A], and almost certainly uncorrected by Chopin. This suggests the absence of the sign in GC (→GE) is probably an oversight. Similarly in bar 65. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of GC |
||||||||
|
b. 49-50
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text we reproduce the notation of the principal source, i.e. FE (see General Editorial Principles and the characterisation of FE4). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins |
||||||||
|
b. 52-53
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections in GC |
in 
in 
