mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 1

composition: Op. 29, Impromptu in A♭ major

 
 
 
..

The range of crescendo is marked in the sources heterogeneously. The shortest hairpins are in A, whereas the longest - in FE. We give the version which complies with the majority of analogous bars.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 1

composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor

 in GC (→GE)

 in FE & EE
..

It is hard to evaluate how the difference in the range of  hairpins was created. It is not certain whether the sign in GC (→GE) was rewritten by the copyist or added by Chopin – it differs both from the signs written certainly by Gutmann (e.g., in bar 22) and the signs certainly added by the composer (e.g., in bar 24 and 45-46). Taking into account the fact that Chopin could have extended the hairpins in the remaining manuscripts, as well as a possibility of an erroneous interpretation of the notation of GC – 6th and 7th note (a and g), as falling after diminuendo, one could consider them as the most silent – in the main text we give the version of FE and EE. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 1-2

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

 in A

 in FE (→EE,GE1no2,GE1op→GE2op→GE3op)

 in GE2no2
..

Shifting the  hairpin so that it starts from an upbeat, is, according to us, rather an inaccuracy of the engraver of FE, hence, in the main text we give the undoubtedly authentic sign of A. However, since an alternative possibility of Chopin's proofreading in FE cannot be entirely excluded, the version of FE, repeated in all remaining editions except for GE2no2, can be considered to be a potentially authentic variant. In turn, shortening the sign in GE2no2 is undoubtedly a revision, as a part of which the  signs in all analogous bars were unified (bars 1-2, 5-6, 17-18 and 21-22).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 1-4

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

2  in A1

No signs in CJ, CK (→CB) & EL
..

The short  marks suggest emphasising the dissonant chord. The former, reaching slightly further into b. 2, could be even interpreted as a reversed long accent. According to us, just like in the case of other complementary indications, these marks may be used in the version of the main text too.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 1-2

composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor

  in A (contextual interpretation→FC)

  in FE (→EE)

  in GE

No markings in CGS
..

The range of the  hairpin in b. 1 is difficult to determine in A – the top arm is much shorter than the bottom one. According to us, it is the range marked by the top arm, written first, that was intended by Chopin. It is compliant with dynamics, naturally resulting from the shape of the melodic line, and this is how it was reproduced by Fontana in FC (→GE). That interpretation is also supported by the range of the  hairpins in analog. b. 3 and 9 (as well as 23), in which the range of the top arm remains unchanged, unlike the considerable and rather accidental changeability of the bottom one. The differences in the length of the  mark in b. 2 seem to be inaccuracies (in FC, not affecting the meaning) or routine revisions (in editions).

CGS overlooked the vast majority of dynamic markings – except for two  in b. 13-14. According to us, it is an oversight of the copyist.

Similar problems and differences occur in following, similar bars 3-5, 9-11 and 23-24.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A