|
b. 161
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
The extension of the c quaver introduced by GE (→FE,EE,IE) seems logical if we take into account the notation of similar figures in bars 159-165, in particular these strictly analogous at the beginning of bar 163 and 165. Therefore, one could assume Chopin's oversight if it were not for the visible traces of removal of an element of notation in A, corresponding to the additional c minim. Therefore, in the main text we keep the A notation, probably intended by Chopin. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 162
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
The version with tied f1 is due to an arbitrary revision of GE (→FE,EE,IE), perhaps introduced under the influence of bar 161, which features a slur of a similar range. Repeating f1 cannot be a mistake – similar six-note motifs starting from a repeated note are also present in bars 160-161 and 163-166. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 163
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text we do not include the inauthentic fingering digit added by EE. See also bars 166-170, 175 and 180-183. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 163
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
The missing slur must be an oversight by the engraver of EE1, corrected in EE2. In FE the indications in this bar were adjusted to the next two ones – see the note in bar 165. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |
||||||||
|
b. 163
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
The missing category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in IE |
in 