mUltimate Chopin

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

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

b. 383

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

Tie to c2 in A & EE

Slur f2-e2 in GE (→FE,IE)
..

In the main text we provide the A tie, clearly at the pitch of c2. The fact that in GE (→FE,IE) it was assigned to the middle notes of the chords (f2-e2), hence turning it into a slur, was an arbitrary decision by the engraver of GE. Moving the slur to the pitch of c2 in EE, hence restoring it to its initial form, a tie, was also arbitrary – the publisher did not have access to A, yet he interfered with the notation of the slurs/ties between the pairs of the L.H. chords in this place by adding slurs/ties in the next bar, in which Chopin did not write them.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 384-385

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

No slurs in A (→GE→IE)

Slur in FE

Slurs in EE
..

The slurs/ties added in FE and EE, although certainly inauthentic, most probably correspond to the performance intended by Chopin.
The second slur added in EE is incomplete – its ending in bar 384 was omitted, in a new line.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , EE inaccuracies , FE revisions

b. 384

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

Long accent in A, contextual interpretation

No mark in GE (→FE,EE,IE)
..

The small accent, intersected by the bar line, was omitted in GE (→FE,EE,IE). We interpret it as a long accent due to its resemblance with the previous three, and this is how we reproduce it in the main text.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in GE

b. 385

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

Accent for both hands in A (→GE→EE)

Accent for R.H. in FE & IE
..

Placing a long accent at the beginning of the bar may be questionable. In GE (→EE) the mark seems to concern both staves, while in FE and IE – rather the top one. Interestingly, this issue is also present in the interpretation of A, in which the arms of this mark are of a different length, which makes it difficult to assess its distance to the staves and the notes. According to us, graphically speaking, both versions are compliant with the A notation, although an accent concerning both staves seems to be a more natural interpretation. Therefore, this is the version we adopt to the main text. On the other hand, assigning the mark to the R.H. allows us to keep the same scheme as in the two preceding bars, in which it is only the subdominant L.H. chords that are accented, falling on the 2nd and 4th crotchet. Therefore, we consider this version an alternative solution.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in A ,

b. 386

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

Various accents in A

Short accents in GE (→FE,EE,IE)
..

The change of the arrangement of the accents in GE (→FE,EE,IE) probably resulted from the conviction of the engraver of GE that the first mark concerns the b1 note in the R.H., which does not stem from the A notation at all. In the main text we convey the difference in the size of the marks by using various types of accents. In GE the marks differ in their size, but it seems to be accidental, which is proven by the remaining editions based on GE, in which the marks are practically identical.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions