|
b. 295-296
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
In A the R.H. part is written on the bottom stave. It is Chopin's oversight – on a new page of A (starting in bar 295), he probably forgot that he wanted to use both staves in this section – cf. the A notation from the middle of bar 292 to bar 294 and then in bars 297-305. Therefore, in our transcriptions we separate the parts of both hands in accordance with the way the remaining part of this theme was written down. This was already done in GE (→FE,EE,IE). category imprint: Source & stylistic information |
||||||||
|
b. 296-308
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
In A the f note at the beginning of bar 296 seems to be a semibreve, since it does not have a stem. The same applies to the f1 note in bar 308. In both cases we are dealing with inaccuracies, which is proven by the ties to these notes (they are supposed to be held to the 2nd half of the bar). Therefore, in both bars we consider the version with a minim to be the A text; it was already introduced by GE (→FE,EE,IE). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Errors of A |
||||||||
|
b. 296-297
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
In A there is no category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Last key signature sign , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||
|
b. 296
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
The version of the majority of the editions resulted from a misinterpretation of the tie to f as a slur referring to the R.H. top voice. The authentic tie was added in EE2, most probably by analogy with bar 308. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 297
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
In A the accent is shorter than the similar marks in analogous bar 293, 305 and even 309. However, if we take into account the similarity of the rhythmic and harmonic context, this comparison proves that it is also in the discussed bar that Chopin almost certainly meant a long accent. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Long accents , Errors in FE |
to the 2nd quaver in bar 296. Chopin's typical inaccuracy was corrected in 
, the 5th quaver, which we include in the main text. On the other hand, we omit the unjustified 
