Zostałeś automatycznie wylogowany z powodu braku aktywności, zaloguj się ponownie.
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


b. 115

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

Slur from first quaver in A, literal reading

Slur from 3rd quaver in A, possible contextual interpretation

No slur in GE (→FE,EE,IE)

..

In A the slur starts from the 1st quaver in bar 115, yet its initial fragment partly overlaps with the word legato. What is more, one can have the impression that Chopin intentionally added a verbal indication to cover this fragment of the slur. Therefore, it is likely that Chopin wanted to adjust the beginning of the slur to phrasing, which he precisely marked in analogous bar 131, 133 and 135 (as well as in bar 117 and 119, although less carefully). We provide this interpretation in the main text, yet we suggest the literal interpretation as an alternative solution. The absence of the slur in GE (→FE,EE,IE) is due to an oversight by the engraver of GE, who overlooked slurs in the last three bars on the page (bars 115-117).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Inaccuracies in A

b. 117-118

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

Slur from 5th quaver in A, literal reading

Łuk from 3rd quaver in A, contextual interpretation

Slur from b. 118 in GE (→FE,EE,IE)

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 117-118

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

Slur from a1 crotchet in A, literal reading

Slur from quaver in GE (→FE,IE)

No slur in EE, interpretation

..

As was the case with the R.H. slur beginning in bar 117, one could assume that the A notation is inaccurate. It results from the very clear harmonic structure of this fragment, in which the four-quaver groups starting on weak beats constitute a sequentially repeated dominant-tonic combination, which determines phrasing already at the level of motifs. Therefore, in the main text we suggest the GE slur (→FE,IE), in spite of it being probably a result of a mistake in the interpretation of A, and not of a harmonic analysis, as in A the initial fragment of the slur is poorly visible, since it blends in with the stave. In EE only the ending of the slur was printed (in bar 118, in a new line), which we interpret as no slur.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 118-120

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

No fingering in A (→GEFE,IE)

Fingering in EE

..

In the main text we omit the inauthentic R.H. part fingering added by EE in bar 118 and 120.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 119

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

Slur divided after 3rd quaver in A, literal reading

Slur divided before 3rd quaver in A (con­textual interpretationGEFE,EE,IE)

..

When interpreted literally, the A slurs are divided after the 3rd quaver in the bar. The comparison with analogous bar 131, 133 and 135 reveals that the notation is inaccurate. Therefore, to the main text we adopt the interpretation introduced by GE (→FE,EE,IE), in which the slur is divided before the 3rd quaver in the bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions