mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 3-8

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

Different length  in A

Longer  in FE (→GE,EE)

Shorter  suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we unify the reach of the  hairpins in bars 3-4 and 7-8, following three out of four signs written in A. In FE1 the signs were unified too, however, it was the sign beginning slightly earlier in bar 4 that was adopted as the model.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 3-4

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

  in A, contextual interpretation

  in A (possible interpretation→FC)

  in FE (→EE)

  in GE

No markings in CGS
..

As was the case with b. 1-2, we consider the top arm of the  hairpin in A to be reliable. In all the remaining sources (except for CGS, in which the marks were overlooked), it was the range of the bottom arm that was taken into account. In the editions, both marks were extended or moved, most probably after their own, general editorial principles.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 4-12

composition: Op. 10 No 11, Etude in E♭ major

..

In A in bar 4 (and bar 12, which repeats this bar) the  hairpins embrace with their range the 2nd and 3rd chords in the bar. This is how it was more or less reproduced in FE, yet minor inaccuracies caused that in GE the sign in bar 12 was given a form of an accent, while in EE in both bars it was printed one quaver too early.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

 in FE, literal reading

in GE

 in FE (contextual interpretation→EE)
..

In FE (→GE) the  mark is placed only in b. 6, the first in a new line. However, the manner it was placed suggests that Chopin wanted it to begin earlier, probably similarly to the hairpin in b. 7-8. This is how it was understood in EE and this is the version we give in the main text. In turn, in GE the mark was considered to have been carelessly engraved, thus it was being gradually shortened and its starting point moved towards the 1st quaver in b. 6. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions

b. 5

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

 in A (contextual interpretation) & GE

  in FC

  in FE

  in EE

No marking in CGS
..

Just like in the similar situations in b. 1 and 3, we believe that it is the top arm of the  mark in A that is more reliable. In FC Fontana averaged the length of the mark, which is one of possible solutions. We consider the mark in GE, slightly shorter than in FC, to be compliant with our interpretation of A. The mark of FE, stretched out, so that it covers an entire bar (and inaccurately reproduced in EE), is most probably a revision.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies , FE revisions