Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
|
b. 232
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
IE added 4 short category imprint: Differences between sources issues: FE revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 233-235
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
According to us, the marks visible in A over the three L.H. minims are to be interpreted – despite the small differences in their shape and position – as long accents referring to these syncopated L.H. chords. The editions reproduced correctly (more or less) only the 2nd and 3rd mark as short accents under the L.H. minims. By contrast, the mark in bar 233 was assigned to the R.H. and, more importantly, moved a quaver earlier, which is clearly contrary to the A notation. A similarly placed, wrong mark is also in bar 234, in which the A accent was reproduced twice, once in the R.H., and once in the L.H. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in GE |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 236-237
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
One or two wedges between these bars are probably in A. The mark in bar 237 was certainly entered as a wedge, yet the one in bar 236 could be simply a part of the wavy line used by Chopin to mark the range of an octave sign. This wavy line also intersects the wedge in bar 237, which could have been intentional if Chopin had wanted to abandon these marks. The first editions did not include the wedges. In the main text we provide the unquestionable wedge in bar 237 in a variant form (in brackets); at the same time, we suggest an alternative solution (also in brackets), that is both potential wedges. A single wedge is supported by a similar fragment in the exposition, in which a staccato mark is to be seen only over the final chord of the sequence (in bar 73). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 236
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
Two marks in the form of a hairpin – accents or short diminuendoes – visible in A are difficult to interpret. Neither the nature of the marks (an accent or a diminuendo) nor the stave they should concern are clear. The same can be said of rhythmic synchronisation – the beginning of the mark may be linked to the 2nd (6th) quaver in the bar or the 3rd (7th) quaver. As the A version we reproduce the graphic image of the manuscript (as far as possible). On the other hand, in the main text we provide the most likely, according to us, contextual interpretation, in which we consider both marks to be the continuation of the three long accents over the L.H. minims in the previous bars. Another possibility, although less likely, could be the way these marks were interpreted by GE and a variation of this interpretation adopted by EE and IE (which are surprisingly consistent considering the fact they were created independently). In FE, to the two signs between the staves (in the EE and IE arrangement) a third one was arbitrarily added, under the last L.H. crotchet. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in A , |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 245
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
The missing wedge over the 5th quaver in GE (→FE,IE) must be due to an oversight by the engraver of GE. In EE the mark was most probably added by analogy with the next bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE |
marks, indicating long accents, as in 
in 
