Issues : Placement of markings
b. 230
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
In the main text we give the hairpin entered by Chopin into FC (→GE1). In subsequent GE the mark was arbitrarily shortened and moved to above the top stave. A similar situation can be found in b. 681. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Placement of markings , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC |
|||||||||
b. 265
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The hairpin is written in A between the staves and begins after the 1st R.H. chord (in Af the bottom arm starts as early as at the beginning of the bar). In GE (→FE,EE) the mark was moved to over the R.H. part, which, in this case, does not significantly influence its meaning. The change was most probably forced by lack of space between the staves; it cannot come from Chopin. The slight change of range in GE1 (→GE2) – the beginning of the mark was moved slightly to the right – was intensified by all subsequent editions, while FESB additionally reversed the direction of the mark, which is a frequent mistake in the first editions of Chopin's pieces. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Placement of markings , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Sign reversal |
|||||||||
b. 315-316
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FE (→EE), the placement of the marks suggests that the first one concerns the R.H., whereas the second one, the L.H. Since it does not seem likely that such differentiation could be intended by Chopin in this context, both marks are probably misplaced. In the main text, we move them to between the staves, since, according to us, they refer to both hands. Changes striving in that direction were gradually introduced in GE1 (→GE2) and GE3. See also the adjacent note. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Placement of markings , GE revisions |
|||||||||
b. 391
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III
..
Moving the slur under the stave was certainly caused by graphic issues. The absence of the slur in GE3 can be explained by an oversight or revision. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Placement of markings , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
|||||||||
b. 416-431
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
The length of an accent used here remains an unsettled issue - short in EE and GC or long in FE (also in subsequent bars - compare bars 418-431). For GE we adopt a short accent just like GC, and the fact that the accent is placed under the RH part must have been the engraver's arbitrary decision. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Placement of markings , GE revisions |