b. 115
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
In the main text we include the cautionary to c2 added in GE (→FE,EE,IE). By contrast, we omit the to f1, the 7th quaver in the bottom voice, unnecessarily repeated in A (→GE→IE). category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , FE revisions |
|||||
b. 118-119
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
The position of the mark in the sources is illogical – under a tied note. According to us, it is Chopin's mistake, and the mark was supposed to be entered half a bar earlier, that is when this octave is played by the L.H., which we suggest in the main text – cf. analogous bar 110 and 114, as well as 319. As an alternative suggestion, we provide a here, which, judging from the markings in the aforementioned bars, could have been intended by Chopin (in this place, the marking denotes a momentary increase in sound intensity – an accent – rather than the general level of dynamics, marked already by in bar 116). category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Errors of A |
|||||
b. 118-123
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
In the L.H. part, led in octaves, Chopin puts accidentals only to one of the notes, usually the top one (only the to d in bar 122 concerns the bottom note). All the necessary accidentals were added in GE (→FE,EE,IE). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A |
|||||
b. 118
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
In the main text we include the cautionary to f1 in the first R.H. chord added in GE (→FE,EE,IE). Considering the key of G minor, well-established for several dozen bars, we also add flats to a and a1. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
|||||
b. 120-121
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
When interpreted literally, the A slur is not related to the phrase structure, which raises doubts as to its range, particularly in the face of numerous other examples of inaccurate slurs in this manuscript (e.g. in bars 96-97). Due to the above, in the main text we provide the interpretation of this slur as adopted by GE (→FE,EE,IE), which is a reasonable compromise between the actual range of the phrase, confirmed by the R.H. slur, and the actual notation (cf. also the L.H. slur in a similar context in bars 112-114). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions |