mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 15-16

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

 in FC (→GE)

No sign in FE & EE1 (→EE2)

 in EE3
..

In the main text we include the  sign written in FC (→GE). Shortening of the hairpins in EE3, most probably modelled after GE, probably resulted from lack of space between the staves.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 15

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No sign in A1 & CB

in CJ & CK

in EL

 suggested by the editors
..

The compliance between CJ and CK allows us to believe that the  hairpin before the penultimate triplet reproduced the notation of [A2]. Nevertheless, in the main text we slightly extend this mark after analogous b. 48 – in this context, a diminuendo naturally leads us to the final note of the run, and the notation of the autograph could have been inaccurate. This idea was fully implemented in EL, most probably also on the basis of comparison with b. 48.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Balakirev's revisions , Revisions in EL

b. 15-16

composition: Op. 28 No. 2, Prelude in A minor

 in A (→FC), contextual interpretation

in FE (→EE)

Long accent in GE

in CGS
..

The interpretation of the  hairpin is problematic due to the fact – typical of Chopin – that the f1 semibreve was placed between the 3rd and 4th quavers in b. 16. Consequently, with respect to the L.H. quavers,  fills the 1st half of the bar; at the same time, however, it reaches only slightly beyond f1, if we look at the R.H. part. As the notation of A clearly indicates the R.H. as the addressee of the discussed mark, in the main text we place it between the e1 quaver and the f1 semibreve. The engraver of FE (→EE) linked the mark to the L.H. part; in addition, he arbitrarily prolonged it (perhaps confused by the contact of the bottom arm of the hairpin with the L.H. slur, which reaches the end of the bar). In turn, it is difficult to find the reason why the clear  mark was replaced by an accent in GE; however, one has to admit that the sonic result related to the latter is much more closer to the one intended by Chopin than the distorted  of FE. The version of CGS must be an inaccurately reproduced mark of FE, but the fact that it begins earlier and that it is not explicitly related to the L.H. brings it closer to the meaning intended by Chopin.

Such short  or even reversed long accents, emphasizing the second note of an ascending second, are often to be encountered in Chopin's works, e.g. in the Prelude in G No. 3 , b. 17-18 as well as in the Concerto in E Minor, Op. 11, 2nd mov., b. 29 or the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, 2nd mov., b. 84 (in the last example the mark was similarly wrongly interpreted as in the Prelude).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 15-16

composition: Op. 28 No. 16, Prelude in B♭ minor

2 half-bar long  in A (contextual interpretation→FE→EE)

Different  in FC

Different  in GE
..

Both  marks in these bars have clearly different arms in A – the top arm begins in the middle of the bar, while the bottom one – on the 2nd beat. According to us, it is the top arm that should be regarded as reliable, since it was written first. This is how those marks were interpreted in FE (→EE) and the latter also in FC (inaccurately reproduced in GE). In FC (→GE) in b. 15 Fontana averaged the length of the arms.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Unclear hairpins in A

b. 16-17

composition: Op. 29, Impromptu in A♭ major

..

We lead the diminuendo hairpins to the penultimate quaver after A. In FE and GE the hairpins are longer in both bars, while in EE they are much shorter in bar 17.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins