b. 92
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
The d1 minim in FE and IE most probably resulted from the awkward GE notation, in which the noteheads of the minims and the semibreves are identical. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Errors in IE |
|||||||
b. 93
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
According to us, the mark is to be interpreted here as a long accent. The literal interpretation, reproduced quite faithfully in GE, was gradually distorted by the subsequent editions, which made it increasingly different from the original notation. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , |
|||||||
b. 94
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
The first L.H. octave is written in A in shorthand with the help of 8. In GE (→FE,EE,IE) it was written out in full. category imprint: Source & stylistic information issues: Abbreviated octaves' notation |
|||||||
b. 95
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
In the main text we put the indication as close as possible to the literal interpretation of A. However, taking into account the lack of place in the first half of the bar, one cannot rule out that the GE version (→FE,EE,IE) correctly conveys Chopin's intention. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Centrally placed marks |
|||||||
b. 95-96
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
The GE interpretation (→FE,EE,IE) of the A notation does not seem to be correct – the slur at the end of the line (bar 95) clearly goes beyond the bar line, while its continuation at the beginning of the next line unmistakably starts before the first note in bar 96. Therefore, in the main text we provide the A version, despite the fact that the division of the slur corresponds to the structural division. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |