



b. 79-80
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
The shorter GE slur (→FE,EE,IE) is probably a mistake, since there is no reason to intentionally change the slur in the discussed place after the three correctly reproduced slurs in the preceding bars. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
||||||
b. 80-83
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
In A there is no category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||
b. 82-83
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
In bar 82, the missing arpeggio in A is almost certainly due to Chopin's oversight – a side effect of the corrections (erasures) visible there. The absence of the mark in bar 83 in GE (→FE,EE,IE) can be explained similarly – inadvertence of the engraver of GE1. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Errors resulting from corrections , Errors in GE , Errors of A |
||||||
b. 82-83
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
The omitted R.H. articulation markings in GE (→FE,EE,IE) could have resulted from the uncertainty to the range of the slurs and to the presence and kind of the staccato marks. In A in many places Chopin would shorten slurs whenever it was impossible to enter them conveniently (cf. I mov., bars 17-20), hence the engraver could have hesitated between a slur encompassing 3 or 2 notes. The lonely (in spite of a few similar figures) staccato mark could have also been questionable. In the main text we provide the literal interpretation of these marks. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE , Wedges |
||||||
b. 83-87
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
In the main text, we do not include the inauthentic fingering added by EE in bars 83 and 85-87. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |