mUltimate Chopin

(Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Slurs
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Slurs

b. 32

composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt III

2 slurs & tie in A (possible interpretation→GE→FE,EE,IE)

2 slurs in A, contextual interpretation
..

In A, between the 3rd and the 4th chord, there are 3 slurs of the same shape, suggesting an ascending second motif. The middle one is written at the pitch of f1, hence, when interpreted literally, it does not concern any of the notes. It can be considered an inaccuracy; therefore, the slur could be assigned to a1, as it was done in GE (→FE,EE,IE). However, according to us, Chopin's mistake is more likely (he could have written one slur too many); it could also be an unfinished correction of an inaccurate slur, which was supposed to have been removed after having written the correct (bottom) one, which Chopin eventually did not do. Such an unintentionally left mark almost certainly occurred in, e.g. mov. I of the Sonata, in bar 179. Therefore, in the main text we provide only two slurs, as marked by Chopin in bar 1.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Errors of A

b. 33-34

composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt III

Slur in 1st part of b. 33 in sources

2 slurs in b. 33-34, our alternative suggestion
..

The absence of the L.H. slurs in the second part of bar 33 and in bar 34 could be due to graphic reasons – Chopin probably stopped writing the slur in A in bar 33 after realising that it would be impossible to lead it to the end of the bar due to the  marks under the R.H. part. In the case of bar 34, a possible slur over the L.H. quavers would have intersected the R.H. dynamic hairpin, which could have hampered the correct interpretation of the manuscript. In the main text we leave the version of the sources, as despite the absence of slurs, the accompaniment is too similar to the previous groups in terms of texture for it to be performed using an articulation other than legato. The slurs in our alternative suggestion are modelled after analogous bar 14 and 16.  

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 37

composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt III

Slur to 9th quaver in A (literal reading) & EE

Slur to 10th quaver in GE (→FE,IE)
..

When interpreted literally, the A slur ends over the penultimate quaver, which is a patent inaccuracy (cf. bars 14-16 or 21-22), hence in the main text we include its interpretation as adopted by GE (→FE,IE). The EE slur must be inaccurate, while its compliance with the A notation is accidental.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , EE inaccuracies

b. 41

composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt III

Slurs from f & b in A

No slurs in GE (→FE,EE,IE)

Slurs from d & b suggested by the editors
..

The A slurs are poorly visible, as a result of which the GE engraver could have overlooked or even ignored them. In the main text we lead the bottom slur from d, in accordance with the notation in bar 1, undoubtedly more careful.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE