|
b. 384-385
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
The slurs/ties added in FE and EE, although certainly inauthentic, most probably correspond to the performance intended by Chopin. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , EE inaccuracies , FE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 384
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
The small accent, intersected by the bar line, was omitted in GE (→FE,EE,IE). We interpret it as a long accent due to its resemblance with the previous three, and this is how we reproduce it in the main text. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Errors in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 385
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
Placing a long accent at the beginning of the bar may be questionable. In GE (→EE) the mark seems to concern both staves, while in FE and IE – rather the top one. Interestingly, this issue is also present in the interpretation of A, in which the arms of this mark are of a different length, which makes it difficult to assess its distance to the staves and the notes. According to us, graphically speaking, both versions are compliant with the A notation, although an accent concerning both staves seems to be a more natural interpretation. Therefore, this is the version we adopt to the main text. On the other hand, assigning the mark to the R.H. allows us to keep the same scheme as in the two preceding bars, in which it is only the subdominant L.H. chords that are accented, falling on the 2nd and 4th crotchet. Therefore, we consider this version an alternative solution. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in A , |
||||||||
|
b. 386
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
The change of the arrangement of the accents in GE (→FE,EE,IE) probably resulted from the conviction of the engraver of GE that the first mark concerns the b1 note in the R.H., which does not stem from the A notation at all. In the main text we convey the difference in the size of the marks by using various types of accents. In GE the marks differ in their size, but it seems to be accidental, which is proven by the remaining editions based on GE, in which the marks are practically identical. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 386
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
In EE2 the three-part A notation (→GE→FE,EE1,IE) was simplified to the two-part notation. This version, undoubtedly arbitrary, practically – considering the fast tempo, authentic accents and natural pedalling – does not differ from the Chopinesque notation in terms of sound. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
