|
b. 9
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt III
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 9-11
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt III
..
In the main text we omit the inauthentic L.H. fingering added by EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 10
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt III
..
In A the category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A |
|||||||||||
|
b. 10
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt III
..
According to us, the beginning of the slur in A is inaccurate, as a result of which the GE version (→FE,EE,IE) probably does not correspond to Chopin's intention. The composer would eagerly use a combination of staccato dots and a slur, and in this manuscript he wrote them down a few times with a similarly inaccurate slur – cf. bars 38-40, as well as bar 41 in mov. I of the Sonata. Another argument for starting the slur from the 2nd crotchet in the bar is the fact that the bottom voice a category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness issues: Inaccurate slurs in A |
|||||||||||
|
b. 10-11
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt III
..
The division of the slur in A most probably resulted from the care for correct notation, with slurs placed on the side of noteheads, which was considered unnecessary and potentially misleading already in GE (→FE,EE,IE). We include this modification in the main text; moreover, we suggest leading the slur to e category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions |
to the 5th L.H. quaver is missing (d). Chopin's patent inaccuracy was corrected in 
1 note is played on it.
