|
b. 110-112
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
In A Chopin did not put accidentals to the bottom notes of the octaves at the beginning of bar 110 and in bar 112; on the other hand, he wrote a category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Last key signature sign , Inaccuracies in A |
|||||||||||
|
b. 110
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
The staccato mark instead of an accent resulted from a mistake by the engraver of GE, who considered the small and careless accent mark to be a wedge. In FE it was reproduced – probably also by mistake – as a dot, while in EE it was most probably overlooked. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE , Errors in GE , FE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 110
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
In GE (→FE,EE,IE) the unquestionable long accent (considering the context) – cf. analogous bar 114 – was literally reproduced as a half-bar category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
|||||||||||
|
b. 110-111
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
In the main text, we do not include the inauthentic R.H. fingering added by EE1 and completed in EE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 111
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt IV
..
The version of the editions can be regarded as justified and considered an acceptable variant – in A the discussed bar opens a new line, and it cannot be ruled out that Chopin forgot to write accents there. In the main text we keep the A notation, as the accents in the preceding bar can be considered models for the entire ascending sequence; moreover, taking into account the crescendo, a performance featuring accents is obvious. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
to the A minim in bar 110 (unnecessary). 
in 
