|
b. 126
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
The easiest explanation for the absence of the last accent in the sequence of chords in FE (→EE1) would be an oversight. In EE2 the mark was most probably added after comparing it with GE1; however, the shape of the mark was adjusted to the preceding short accents. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in FE |
||||||
|
b. 126-130
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text we do not include the inauthentic fingering added by EE in bars 126-128 and 130. See also bar 131, 133-138 and 139-142. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 126-127
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
The GE slur (→FE,EE,IE) having been led to the beginning of bar 127 was an arbitrary decision of the engraver of GE. Pianistically and musically speaking, such a slur would be justified, yet Chopin did not write such long slurs, neither here nor in any analogous bar. In the main text we provide the A slur. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 126-127
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
In A Chopin omitted many accidentals, which, due to the context, does not cast doubt on the pitch of the respective notes. We are dealing with the sharps to g category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , FE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 126
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
We add a cautionary category imprint: Editorial revisions |
3 and c
to g
to e3 on the 4th quaver in bar 127, unnecessary after adding a respective accidental 2 notes earlier.