mUltimate Chopin

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

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Rhythm
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Rhythm

b. 46

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

Quaver chord in A, literal reading

Octave & third in A, possible interpretation 

c2 & chord in GE (→FE,IE)

Octave in EE
..

The illogical GE version (→FE,IE), in which the c1-f1-a1 chord at the beginning of the 2nd half of the bar is a crotchet and is assigned to the bottom voice, resulted from a misunderstanding of the A notation, which is actually misleading. The manuscript can be interpreted twofold:

  • The stem under c1 concerns the f1-a1 third, as it was, more or less, in the preceding bar, where the division into parts is clear only due to the dots prolonging the g1-a1 second. Harmonically and pianistically speaking, this version is flawless, yet the chosen kind of notation would be very confusing, which, according to us, reduces the likelihood of it being interpreted correctly.
  • The alleged stem under the c1 note is a side result of the manner of writing notes on ledger lines with a small stroke pointing downwards, to mark the presence of a given note, which otherwise could be imperceptible due to the thickness of the ledger line; this manner is often to be found in Chopin's autographs – cf., e.g. the Mazurka in B minor, Op. 24 No. 4, bar 23. In the Sonata, there are many examples of this kind of notation, e.g. at the end of bar 49 (in the same line, in the R.H.). When interpreted as such, the A notation is unambiguous and simple – the entire chord is supposed to be a quaver. Therefore, we consider it to be the A text and introduce it into the main text.

The EE version probably resulted from an unfinished attempt at correcting the GE notation – the aim was one of the versions described above, yet the middle notes of the chord were not printed.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , Errors in GE , Uncertain notes on ledger lines , Inaccuracies in A

b. 59

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

Tied minims in sources

Semibreve suggested by the editors
..

To the main text we introduce a simpler version of notation, as in analogous bar 219. The tied minims in the sources must be remaining elements of an earlier version, e.g. minims without ties. See also bar 66, 94. 

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 64

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

d2 repeated in sources

d2 tied, our suggestion
..

The comparison with analogous bar 224 suggests that the missing tie to d2 is due to Chopin's oversight. In the main text we suggest adding this tie.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Errors of A

b. 66

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

Dotted minim suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we introduce a simpler version of notation of analogous bar 226. The version of the sources with a tie could stem from an earlier version (with a repeated g note).

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 66

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

..

In A the augmentation dot to g1 in the bottom R.H. voice is missing. It must be Chopin's oversight, corrected in GE (→FE,EE,IE). Although it is not the only way of complementing the bottom voice rhythm – Chopin could have, for example, planned to repeat this note on the last quaver in the bar – we provide this version in the main text, as it is easier to imagine an overlooked augmentation dot than an overlooked quaver, while the figure present in this bar was also used in bar 102 and 104.
See also bar 226.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Errors of A