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. 386

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

Three parts in A (→GE→FE,EE1,IE)

Two parts in EE2
..

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

b. 390-391

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

No 8va - - in A, literal reading

8va - - in GE (→FE,EE,IE)
..

Chopin almost certainly committed a mistake (he did not finish the octave sign), which is proven by:

  • the absence of loco, with which Chopin would always end the 8va - - - indication;
  • breaking the virtuoso momentum of the figuration, which was not led to the end of the scale (f4) – cf. bars 382-383;
  • the parts of both hands unnaturally coinciding on the last quaver in bar 390, f3.

Therefore, in the main text we provide the GE version (→FE,EE,IE), in which Chopin's intention was undoubtedly figured out correctly.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Errors of A

b. 391-392

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

Crotchets e1, e1, c1-e1, b, g, in A

Crotchets e1-a1, e1-g1, e1, b, g, in GE

Crotchets e1, e1, e1, b, g, in FE, EE, IE

Crotchets e1-a1, e1-g1, c1-e1, b-d1, g-b, our alternative suggestion
..

In the main text we literally interpret the A notation of the last 5 pairs of quavers. According to us, however, it is likely that four of them are written inaccurately. It is indicated by the notation of the 2nd figure in bar 392, in which both notes of the c1-e1 third were prolonged to a crotchet, and not only the bottom one, as in the remaining ones. It is more natural, both musically and pianistically, hence we suggest the version with analogously prolonged notes in all figures as an alternative solution. The versions of the editions resulted from the arbitrary revision of the A notation (by GE) and of the GE notation (by the remaining editions). 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , FE revisions ,

b. 391

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

..

In A the  to the 6th quaver in the bar is missing, which, in the face of the lack of an octave sign in the 1st half of the bar, does not impact the pitch of the note (a  is present at the same pitch before a1, two notes earlier). Chopin also omitted the  to the last quaver (a) and the  to the bottom note of the 4th L.H. octave (F). All the accidentals were added in GE (→FE,EE,IE).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 393

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

from 2. quaver in A

 from 3rd quaver in GE (→FE,EE,IE)

 from 1st quaver, our alternative suggestion
..

In the main text we put the  over the 2nd quaver, in accordance with the A notation. However, it is highly likely that the indication is supposed to be in force from the beginning of the bar, and its position is an example of a manner that can often be found in Chopin's pieces, that is putting markings within their scope of validity (and not at the beginning). Cf., e.g. the Concerto in E minor, Op. 11, I mov., bar 16.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Centrally placed marks