mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 8-9

composition: Op. 29, Impromptu in A♭ major

..

A, FE and GE differ in the range of crescendo hairpins. GE edition has the longest hairpins, while the shortest are in A. EE is lacking them completely (cf. remark concerning bars 7-9). In A one can see the sign's prolongation (see the adjacent remark concerning corrections in A).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 8-9

composition: Op. 29, Impromptu in A♭ major

..

Chopin changed the hairpins' concept in A: he deleted the crescendo hairpins in bar 9 and he prolonged the ones beginning in bar 8. Probably both changes were introduced at the same time: Chopin deleted the short hairpins in bar 9, planning to introduce a longer crescendo indication. In order to do that, he added an extension of the hairpins' arm from bar 8 or even the entire hairpins in two moves (the too short sign and extension).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Corrections & alterations

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Deletions in A

b. 8

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No sign in A1, CK (→CB) & EL

 in CJ, literal reading

Long accent in CJ, possible interpretation

Our variant suggestion
..

It is difficult to interpret the mark in CJ – it has uneven arms, as a result of which it is uncertain when it should begin, while its ending falls within the 2nd half of the bar, written using abridged notation, which hampers the estimation of its range. Moreover, the absence of the mark in the remaining sources, and particularly in CK, which is based on the same source, suggests that it could have been entered by mistake – the first halves of b. 8-9 are graphically very similar, which could have confused the copyist. According to us, assuming that the mark was present in [A2], we consider a long accent to be the most likely interpretation. Due to the described doubts, in the main text we give this accent in a variant form. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in JC

b. 8-9

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

in AI & AF

in FE

No sign in EE

in GE1

Inverted long accent in GE2
..

We consider that the  hairpins in AI and AF are of the same range – the mark begins over the d1 crotchet in AI, and under the f1 minim in AF, hence in both cases on the 2nd beat of the bar. In GE the mark is a reversed long accent at the beginning of b. 9, yet it is highly likely that it was reproduced inaccurately due to the transition into a new line, starting from b. 9 – an earlier beginning is particularly indicated by its placement in GE1. Therefore, uncertain as to the exact range of the mark in [AG], in the main text we convey the hairpin after AF.
The version of FE is inaccurate, whereas the one of EE – erroneous.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 9-13

composition: Op. 10 No 12, Etude in C minor

  in A

FE (→EE)

GE
..

We give the pairs of hairpins, appearing under similar figures in the L.H. in these bars and their repetitions in the entire Etude, in a unified version for each of the sources, in spite of the fact that the marks differ in their range. Same as in the case of slurs, the regularity of the texture and numerous repetitions of similar figures contribute to the decision not to consider these minor divergences in transcriptions.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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