Ornaments
|
b. 41
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the arpeggio and grace note in GC (the arpeggio is written as a slur, which, at this stage of life, was already a frequent way of writing this ornament by Chopin and this is how it was reproduced in GE). On the other hand, the version of FE, devoid of these elements, was not completed by Chopin neither in the proofreadings of FE nor in the base text to EE, which can prove its acceptance by the composer. Therefore, in the main text we suggest a variant solution. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 45
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
In FE1 there is no arpeggio sign at the beginning of the bar. It is certainly caused by the engraver's distraction. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 52-53
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 105
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The arpeggio was most probably overlooked by the copyist. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 169
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The tie visible in GC before the chord means an arpeggio in this context. The version of GE, repeated then in EE2, is a result of a routine revision – the sign was moved to the side of the note head of the d1 grace note, which gave it a form of a tie sustaining the grace note (cf. the note on the part of the L.H.). No slur in FE (→EE1) is most probably an oversight. FE1 includes an erroneous c1 as the grace note, which was corrected in the next impressions. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , FE revisions |
