Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins
|
b. 2-3
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
According to us, out of two sources based directly on [A] – GC and FE – it is the copy that may convey a more accurate representation of this place in the autograph, since the text in FE is too tightly packed. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 14-15
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The differences in the length of the category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins |
|||||||||||
|
b. 16
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
The differences between GC, FE (→EE1) and GE seem to be accidental inaccuracies. The solution we suggest in the main text is an attempt to reconstruct [A] on the basis of the discrepancies between GC and FE. The same range of the category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC |
|||||||||||
|
b. 39-41
|
composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I
..
It is unknown how the discrepancies between the dynamic indications of the sources based on [A], i.e. GC and FE, occurred. In each of these sources, one can assume both an inaccurate interpretation of [A] and Chopinesque corrections or additions (in the case of FE they would be corrections in [A] introduced already after GC had been finished). In the main text we give the version of the base source (FE4), yet the version of GC may be considered an equal variant. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins |
|||||||||||
|
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 |
in 
in 
