|
b. 40
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 40
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
The absence of a slur in FE1 is most easily explained by an oversight on the part of the engraver. The defect was corrected in FE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 41
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
Due to asymmetrical alignment of the A slur with respect to the staccato dots, one could assume that it encompasses the entire 2nd half of the bar. However, according to us, Chopin almost certainly envisioned here a slur over the three quavers, as it was interpreted by GE (→EE,IE). The longer FE slur does not have to suggest that the FE editors had access to A, since engravers would often adjust slurs or dynamic hairpins to natural rhythmic groups, for example, groups of notes under one beam. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A |
||||||||
|
b. 41
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text we leave the literal interpretation of the A slur, although graphically speaking, it would be justified to consider it an inaccurate half-bar slur – see bars 17-20. In this case the musical argument used there cannot be applied – it is not one of many similar accompanying figures. GE (→FE,EE,IE) approached the slur the same way as in the vast majority of graphically similar situations. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 42
|
composition: (Op. 4), Sonata in C minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text we provide the literal interpretation of the category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins |
in 
