|
b. 64
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
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 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
..
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 |
|||||
|
b. 65
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
In FE the octave sign ends on the 5th quaver in the bar (c3-f3), which is the engraver's patent mistake. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
|||||
|
b. 66
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text we introduce a simpler version of notation of analogous bar 226. The version of the sources with a tie could stem from an earlier version (with a repeated g note). category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||
|
b. 66
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
In A the augmentation dot to g1 in the bottom R.H. voice is missing. It must be Chopin's oversight, corrected in GE (→FE,EE,IE). Although it is not the only way of complementing the bottom voice rhythm – Chopin could have, for example, planned to repeat this note on the last quaver in the bar – we provide this version in the main text, as it is easier to imagine an overlooked augmentation dot than an overlooked quaver, while the figure present in this bar was also used in bar 102 and 104. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions , Errors of A |
, which could make the manuscript ambiguous here.
