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

b. 179

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

Slur from 2nd quaver in A (→GE→EE,IE)

Slur from first quaver in FE
..

The A slur is clearly visible only from the 4th quaver; however, traces of pen are visible from the 2nd quaver. This is how it was reproduced by GE (→EE,IE). According to us, the later starting point of this slur than the one suggested by the phrase structure is an inaccuracy, probably caused by lack of space – a slur starting from the 1st quaver would intersect the natural, which could hamper the interpretation of this fragment. Due to the above, in the main text we begin the slur from the 1st quaver, as in bar 1 and as it was interpreted by FE.
See also bars 181 and 182-183.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , FE revisions

b. 179

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

 &  in A, literal reading

 in A (contextual interpretation→GE→FE,EE,IE)

 in A, possible interpretation
..

The presence of two mutually exclusive dynamic indications in A can be explained by an unfinished correction – Chopin first wrote one indication and then the other one, probably planning to erase the first one together with the other marks that were supposed to be removed (e.g. the staccato dots in bar 102 or  in bar 155). However, the corrections remained unfinished, hence it is uncertain whether Chopin wanted to restore , in accordance with the dynamics at the beginning of the Sonata, or to introduce , which would provide the recapitulation with a different expressive nuance. According to us, the first possibility is more likely, hence in the main text we provide . A similar conclusion was reached by the reviser of GE (→FE,EE,IE).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Errors of A

b. 180-183

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

No fingering in A (→GE→FE,IE)

Fingering in EE
..

In the main text we do not include the inauthentic L.H. part fingering added by EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 181

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

Slur from 2nd quaver in sources, literal reading

Slur from 1st quaver suggested by the editors
..

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 182-183

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

2 slurs in A

3 slurs in GE (→FE,EE,IE)

Continuous slur suggested by the editors
..

According to us, the fragmentary A slurs resulted from the R.H. chords having been written on the bottom stave, which made it impossible to lead a continuous slur over the L.H. quavers. Due to the above, in the main text we provide a slur modelled after the analogous bars in the exposition (bars 4-6), in which Chopin was not restricted by lack of space. The A slurs were considered incomplete already by GE (→FE,EE,IE) and supplemented in the easiest possible way while keeping the range of the slurs entered by Chopin.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions