mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 158-160

composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

Shorter  in A

Longer  in FE

Extended  in GE & EE

Shortened  in GE1a
..

According to us, the extension of the  hairpin in FE goes beyond – particularly in b. 158, at the beginning of the mark – a routine adjustment to the rhythmic structures. Therefore, we assume that it is a result of proofreading (carried out by Chopin), and this is the version we give in the main text. In A one can see that both the beginning and the ending of the hairpin are placed in a manner that they do not blend in with the other elements of notation. In GE and EE the mark was extended at the end of b. 160, which was an arbitrary decision, devoid of practical meaning. The mark having been shortened by GE1a is a mistake resulting from the transition to a new page (from b. 160).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 159-160

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

No sign in AI & GE

in Af

in FE (→EE)
..

In the main text we give the  mark written in AF, in which the dynamic markings in this fragment – see the note in the previous bar – are more detailed as a whole than in GE. However, the exact range of the sign may raise doubts – its arms are of different length, while in an analogous situation in b. 167-168 a respective mark reaches the 2nd beat of b. 168 only, which seems to be more natural in this context (locally, f1 is the topmost note of the melody, suspension and syncopation). Such a range of this  mark, slightly shorter, is featured in FE (→EE), yet it may result from the engraver's inaccuracy.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

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

b. 160

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

No mark in AI, GE & EE

in AF

Long accent in FE
..

The mark in AF, in spite of its excessive size, could be considered a long accent if it were not for an even longer mark in analogous b. 168. Due to this reason, in the main text we keep the form of this mark written in AF, which, according to Chopin, could have been supposed to emphasise not only the minim, but also its modulating continuation. The absence of the mark in EE probably means that it was overlooked in the proof copy of FE. Then the long accent printed in the finished FE would be a result of Chopin's proofreading. A similar situation can be found in b. 168.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 162-172

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

 signs in A

 signs in FE

 signs in GE & EE
..

Similarly as in bars 33-44 (in the autographs the discussed bars are not written out), we reproduce the range of the  hairpins in the main text on the basis of A. In FE the first 4 signs correspond with the range to the notation of A, however, the next are slightly longer. The remaining editions include signs of the same, six-quaver length.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 162-163

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

Long accent in A (→FC→GE1)

in FE (→EE)

in GE2 (→GE3)
..

In accordance with the analysis of the Chopinesque  or  marks in this and analog. pairs of bars (see b. 6-7), in the main text we give the averaged, more or less one-bar hairpin of FE (→EE). According to us, all marks, regardless of their length, are supposed to be long accents.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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