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. 314

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

..

In A there is no  to the bottom note of the octave on the 3rd crotchet. The inaccuracy was corrected in GE (→FE,EE,IE).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 317

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

A-a in A & EE

A-a in GE (→FE,IE)
..

The version of this bar visible in A is correctly written and completely logical, harmonically speaking. What is more, it exactly corresponds to the version of bar 108 (except for a different position of the chord at the beginning of the bar). Therefore, there is no reason to look for Chopin's mistake therein, which the reviser of GE (→FE,EE) tried to do, particularly since we are not dealing with any typical mechanism of Chopinesque mistakes – it is neither an overlooked cancellation of an altered note nor an omission of an accidental belonging to the current key.
On the other hand, in all three remaining analogous pairs of bars (bars 108-109, 116-117 and 321-322), the last quaver in the first bar is the same as the last quaver in the 1st half of the second bar, which can be considered an argument for overlooked naturals. Another argument is provided by the fact that Chopin was often uncertain regarding the current key signature – e.g. in bar 317 we can see a  to a, which could mean that Chopin temporarily considered a note at this pitch devoid of a  to be a (other similar situations – see, e.g. bar 185, 283 or 297). According to us, the second group of arguments is slightly more convincing, hence in the main text we provide the version with an A-a octave, considering A-a an equal variant.
The compliance between A and EE seems accidental – EE1 stands out due to its number of oversights and mistakes, out of which not all were corrected in EE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Errors of A

b. 317-318

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

 in A (literal reading→GE→FE,EE,IE)

Long accents in A, contextual interpretation
..

In A each of the three  marks fills a half of a bar, which was repeated in GE (→FE,EE,IE), with minor inaccuracies. Such repeating  marks are generally long accents, hence in the main text we present them in this standardised form. An additional justification for such an interpretation is provided by the marks in analogous bars 108-109.
Similarly, in bars 321-322.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents

b. 317

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

..

In the main text we omit the unjustified  (cautionary?) to a in the 1st L.H. chord, present in all sources.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Cautionary accidentals

b. 318

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

..

In A the accidentals to the bottom notes of the octaves are missing. The inaccuracy was corrected in GE (→FE,EE,IE).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A