mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 112

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

in A

cresc. in GE (→FE,EE,FESB)
..

In A the arms of the  mark are of different length; in this case, we regard the top, longer arm as reliable.
The omission of the hairpin in the editions most probably resulted from an ad hoc revision of the engraver of GE1, who considered the two overlapping synonymous indications an unnecessary complication.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions

b. 117-118

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

in AF

in FE (→EE) & GE
..

It is the top arm of the  hairpin in AF, probably written first, that we consider to be reliable, since it emphasises the accenting nature of this mark. In FE (based on AF) the mark begins slightly later, which allows us to assume that it could have also been in GE that the engraver began the hairpin later in order to avoid an intersection with the bottom voice stem (two bars later the mark is present in GE only, hence without [AG] one cannot say whether Chopin repeated this notation there).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 120-122

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

in AF (→FE)

  in GE

No signs in EE

  suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we follow the marks of GE, in which the markings are more accurate in this fragment (pedalling in b. 117-121,  in b. 119). The only element we modify is the ending of the mark, since b. 121 closes a line in this edition; therefore, even if the notation of [AG] resembled the one of AF, the engraver could have considered the placement of a very short ending of a hairpin in a new line to be irrational. The version of AF (→FE) can be considered an equal variant.
In fact, the difference may be subtle – the mark of AF suggest the most emphasis on the crotchet ending b. 120, whereas in the version of GE such a local climax can be this chord or the minim in b. 121.
The missing mark in EE is probably an oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in EE

b. 122-123

composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor

 in A

 in FE (→EE) & GE2 (→GE3→GE4)

No sign in GE1
..

The  hairpins were inaccurately recreated in FE (→EE), whereas in GE1 they were most probably overlooked. In the subsequent GE the sign was added on the basis of analogous bars 18-19. In the main text we give the hairpins of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 123-124

composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major

in A

in GC (→GE)

in FE

No sign in EE
..

Similarly to the slur, the moment where the  hairpin begins is not obvious in the manuscripts. We assume that the sign in A has the character of a long accent, and starts slightly before the a crotchet. However, the sign in GC starts after the minim at the beginning of the bar, as it was interpreted by GE which is based on this copy. The shortening of the hairpin in FE resulted most probably from the line-break, and the sign in EE was overlooked.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in EE , Inaccuracies in GC