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
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 8

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

..

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A

b. 10-12

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

Wedges & slurs from 2nd quaver in A, contextual interpretation

Whole-bar slurs in GE (→FE,EE,IE)
..

The GE version (→FE,EE,IE), in which the wedges over the octaves at the beginning of bar 10 and 12 were ignored and the entire bars were encompassed with slurs, indicates that the engraver of GE was firmly convinced that Chopinesque slurs were generally careless. However, in this case, adjusting them to clear rhythmic structures certainly does not correspond to Chopin's intention, since in all further appearances of this phrase (bars 193-195 and 376-378) he wrote slurs running from the 2nd quaver in the bar.
It is only the ending of the slur in bar 10 that is to be considered inaccurate; when interpreted literally, in A it reaches only b.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions

b. 11-12

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

in b. 11-12 & cresc. in A

2  & cresc. in GE (→FE)

2  in EE

 in b. 12 & cresc. in IE
..

The interpretation of the  hairpin in A, in spite of differing arms, seems quite simple – while writing the top arm, Chopin had to bypass the R.H. chord, hence we assume that it is the bottom arm that determines the intended length of the mark. In GE (→FE,EE) bar 12 opens a new line, which forced the division of the hairpin into two separate marks (it was one of the ways – in addition to the contemporary one – of reproducing hairpins in such situations). IE omitted the first one, probably due to the engraver's inattention.
In EE the cresc. indication in bar 12 was omitted, which could be a simplification of notation or an oversight.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in EE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A , Errors in IE

b. 12

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

in A

No sign in GE (→FE,EE,IE)
..

The missing  hairpin could be an oversight or a simplification of notation – the engraver of GE could have considered a third crescendo indication in this bar to be an unnecessary complication.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 20

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

Staccato dot in A & EE

No mark in GE (→FE,IE)
..

The missing dot in GE (→FE,IE) must be an oversight – see next note. The appearance of the mark in EE can be explained by the presence of a dot in a similar context in the previous bar – this could have prompted the reviser to add it or simply confused the engraver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , Errors in GE