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. 6

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

A in A

A in GE (→FE,EE,IE)
..

The version featuring A is absolutely possible, harmonically speaking; however, it seems much more likely that Chopin forgot to write a  (as in the previous bar). It is supported by the regular, chromatic bass sequence, contrasting with the chromatic sequence of the topmost R.H. notes (e-f-f-g); above all, it is supported by the flats in two analogous bars as this theme returns – bar 189 and 372. Considering the above analysis, in the main text we provide the version of the editions, featuring A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors of A

b. 7

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

f2, f1, f in A

f2, f1, f in GE (→FE,EE,IE)

f2 (), f1, f suggested by the editors
..

In the 2nd half of the bar A does not contain any accidentals; therefore, the 1st R.H. quaver is to be read as f2, the last one as f1, while the respective L.H. chord note as f. The sharps raising all those f notes to f present in GE (→FE,EE,IE) were arbitrarily added by the reviser of GE, who assumed that Chopin overlooked them. However, it does not seem possible at all, since this pattern appears two more times further on, in bar 190 and 373, always in the same form in A, without any accidentals. It is also worth emphasising that unlike in the previous two bars (see the notes on bars 5 and 6), in this case the oversight would not concern a cancelled alteration, which is one of the most frequent mistakes by Chopin, but the alteration itself, which was extremely rare. Therefore, in the main text we provide the version with f, as the only authentic one; we only add a cautionary  to the first of the discussed notes (f2).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 8

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

..

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A

b. 9-12

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

..

The last C in bar 9 is an exceptionally clear example of the Chopinesque manner of writing notes on ledger lines, which consisted in providing the notehead with an additional vertical line pointing downwards, which could be considered a crotchet stem in some situations – see the Mazurka in B minor, Op. 24 No. 4, bar 23. E in bar 12 is also provided with such a line, shorter yet still distinct.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Source & stylistic information

issues: Uncertain notes on ledger lines

b. 10-12

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

Wedges & slurs from 2nd quaver in A, contextual interpretation

Whole-bar slurs in GE (→FE,EE,IE)
..

The GE version (→FE,EE,IE), in which the wedges over the octaves at the beginning of bar 10 and 12 were ignored and the entire bars were encompassed with slurs, indicates that the engraver of GE was firmly convinced that Chopinesque slurs were generally careless. However, in this case, adjusting them to clear rhythmic structures certainly does not correspond to Chopin's intention, since in all further appearances of this phrase (bars 193-195 and 376-378) he wrote slurs running from the 2nd quaver in the bar.
It is only the ending of the slur in bar 10 that is to be considered inaccurate; when interpreted literally, in A it reaches only b.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions