



b. 65
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt II
..
The missing accent in GE (→FE,EE,IE) could be explained by an oversight by the GE engraver. However, he could have omitted the mark on purpose when it turned out that due to the small gap between the great staves, the mark placed over the R.H. in this bar could have been erroneously assigned to the L.H. crotchet in bar 59, placed above this bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
||||||||
b. 65
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt II
..
In the main text we do not include the inauthentic fingering added by EE (in both impressions). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
b. 66
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt II
..
In GE the staccato dot was placed at the end of the stem, as a result of which it was not reproduced by any of the remaining editions. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
||||||||
b. 66
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt II
..
Although the A mark suggests the use of a short accent, in the main text we suggest a long accent due to the context of a long note, typical for long accents, additionally provided with a ten. indication (the issue of inaccurately written long accents in A – see mov. IV, bars 108-109). The editions also contain a long accent, extended, probably due to the fact that it was considered a diminuendo mark. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE |
||||||||
b. 66-67
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt II
..
In the main text we do not include the inauthentic R.H. fingering added by EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |