|
b. 67-72
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text we omit the inauthentic fingering added by EE in bars 67-69 and 72. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 71-72
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
In A Chopin marked the beamed pairs of quavers (7 in the R.H. and 7 in the L.H.) in three ways:
According to us, these differences do not mean that the pairs should be performed differently than in the case of the first two pairs (the performance of which is marked most carefully). However, they could suggest certain details – stronger articulation in the R.H. (than in the L.H.) and in the first two pairs (than in the remaining ones). Therefore, in the main text we keep this version of notation. As an alternative solution, we suggest a version with added L.H. slurs, as a literal performance of the L.H. part, without combining the quavers in pairs, could have adversely affected the nature of the music. In GE (→FE,EE,IE) the notation was fully standardised – each pair of quavers was provided with a slur and a staccato dot, in both hands. This solution is not devoid of rational grounds, yet it cannot be authentic; moreover, as we described it above, the suggested performance is standardised to a greater extent than in Chopin's text. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Wedges |
||||||||
|
b. 72-73
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text we keep the A notation (→GE→EE,IE), in which the pair of chords between these bars was marked with a dot over the second one, and not with a slur, as was the case with the previous ones. The chords differ in their form and their position in the phrase from the previous ones, hence this difference in markings could have been intentional. The performance indicated by the reviser of FE could be considered acceptable. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: FE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 73-74
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
There is no reason to underline here the discontinuity of particular motifs with staccato marks modelled after the preceding two bars – although the hand needs to be moved, the two-bar slur encompassing this entire passage shows that Chopin wanted the phrase to be cohesive (this phrase only seemingly refers to the preceding one). In the main text we do not include the staccato dots introduced by GE (→FE,EE,IE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 73-74
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
In A there are no slurs over the last three quavers in bar 73. In the manuscript this bar ends a page, which allows us to consider the missing slurs, over the topmost pair of thirds and the beginning fragment of the subsequent one, to be Chopin's patent mistake. The ending of the second slur at the beginning of bar 74 visible on a new page proves the composer's oversight. Therefore, we do not consider the version without slurs to be a variant and provide it only in the graphic transcription (version "transcript"). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Errors of A , Uncertain slur continuation |
