mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 365

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

​​​​​​​ in FE (→EE)

No sign in GE

​​​​​​​ suggested by the editors
..

The range of the  hairpin in FE (→EE) is questionable – it is disproportionately short to the descending part of the passage, which lasts the entire bar. A possible reason for that inaccuracy could be lack of space under the low-placed beam of the 3rd triplet in [A]. In the main text, we suggest a mark modelled after the more carefully marked passage in bars 356-357. The absence of the mark in GE is most probably attributable to an oversight.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 390-391

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

 & long accents in FE (probable reading)

  ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​in FE (possible reading→EE,GE1→GE2)

Longer   ​​​​​​​in GE3
..

In FE, the meaning of the short diminuendo hairpin at the beginning of the 2nd half of the bar is unclear. The marks' size resembles long accents, yet they are placed directly under the 3rd semiquaver triplet. Therefore, we consider long accents or ​​​​​​​ to be the most likely interpretations; the latter was adopted both in GE1 (→GE2) and EE. Extending each mark so that they cover a half of the bar is an arbitrary revision of GE3.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions

b. 474-475

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

​​​​​​​ in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2)

​​​​​​​ in GE3
..

The significantly shorter  hairpin with respect to analogous bars 472-473, musically unjustified, suggests an inaccuracy of notation. The reason for a later beginning of the mark could have been, e.g. lack of space in [A] – if FE had faithfully reproduced the layout of the autograph, Chopin would have had less space under the L.H. part in the discussed bars due to all stems pointing downwards. In turn, an earlier ending could have been related to the semiquavers passing to the upper stave (both elements of the layout were not taken into account in our transcriptions). Therefore, in the main text we give a ​​​​​​​ mark analogous to the one in bars 472-473. A similar change was introduced in GE3.  

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions

b. 521

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in A & GE

Shorter  in FC

in bar 521 in FE (→EE)

Long accent in FED
..

According to us, the placement of the  hairpin under the L.H. chords in A was forced by lack of place over them: due to the notation of the topmost notes of the chords on the top stave, the mark must have been situated in a place already occupied by the R.H. slur and rests. It is confirmed by a teaching entry in FED, which we thus consider to be the most accurate expression of Chopin's intention. The hairpin of A was reproduced inaccurately both in FC and FE. In turn, the version of GE is close enough to the notation of A to be considered equivalent.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 597-598

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

in A

in FC & FE (→EE)

in GE
..

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

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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