mUltimate Chopin

(Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 62

composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I

No ornament in sources

[] suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we suggest adding an ornament [] after analogous bar 220 and 222 and most probably also bar 60. As in the remaining bars, we specify the top note as d2.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 63-65

composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I

No fingering in A (→GE→FE,IE)

Fingering in EE
..

In the main text we omit the inauthentic fingering added by EE in bar 63 and 65. Similarly, in bars 67-69.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 64

composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I

d2 repeated in sources

d2 tied, our suggestion
..

The comparison with analogous bar 224 suggests that the missing tie to d2 is due to Chopin's oversight. In the main text we suggest adding this tie.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Errors of A

b. 64

composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I

Slur from 2nd quaver in A

Slur from 1st quaver in GE (→FE,EE,IE)
..

When interpreted literally, the A slur starts from the 2nd quaver. It must be an inaccuracy, resulting from the inability to write a longer slur without crossing the , which could make the manuscript ambiguous here.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions

b. 65

composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I

f2 in A

f3 in GE (→FE,EE,IE)
..

It is difficult to say whether the earlier starting point of the octave sign in the editions resulted from a mistake or from a revision in GE. The mistake is supported by the absence of a corresponding correction in the recapitulation (bar 225), whereas the revision – by the pianistic ease of the changed version, in which the hand is to be moved not under the slur, but after the note provided with the staccato mark. Anyway, the A version does not contain a mistake, since this is how Chopin wrote this place twice – here and in bar 225. Such large intervals provided with a slur are to be found in other pieces by Chopin, cf., e.g. the Concerto in E minor, Op. 11, I mov., bar 391. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions