mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 11-12

composition: Op. 28 No. 2, Prelude in A minor

in A

in FC & EE

No sign in FE1

in FE2

in GE

in CGS
..

The corrections and crossings-out visible in A reveal the changes performed both to the range and the position of the  hairpin in this place (As does not contain any dynamic markings). The initial mark, written between the staves, started between the 6th and 7th quavers in b. 10, which was changed by Chopin – he moved the beginning under the last quaver in that bar. Eventually, both versions were crossed out, and a new hairpin was written over the R.H. part, which we give in the main text. Although the new mark begins at the end of b. 10, both FC (→GE) and FE2 (→EE) placed its starting point only in b. 11 – these changes cannot come from Chopin, since he did not directly participate in the publication of the Preludes after having finished A. The longest mark of CGS is most probably an arbitrary interpretation of the hairpin of FE2 by the copyist. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Errors in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Corrections in A , Deletions in A , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 11

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

in A (→FE→EE)

 in FC

No sign in GE & CGS
..

The  hairpin was reproduced inaccurately both in FC and FE (→EE); however, we consider that the change of the mark's range in FE has no impact on its meaning. The omission of the hairpin in GE and CGS must be oversights. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in GE , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 11

composition: Op. 28 No. 9, Prelude in E major

 in A, contextual interpretation

No sign in FC (→GE), FE (→EE) & CGS
..

Like in the previous two bars, we assume the bottom arm of the  hairpin in A to be reliable. The mark is absent in all the remaining sources, which is almost certainly a result of oversights:

  • A few overlooked elements prove that Fontana was distracted at the time of writing the last line of FC – in addition to , it is also the L.H. slur and dashes marking the range of crescendo that are missing.
  • While working on the last line, the engraver of FE probably omitted the stage of adding dynamic markings, since the  hairpin is neither in b. 10 nor in b. 11.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 12-13

composition: Op. 25 No 2, Etude in F minor

No signs in AT & AW

One sign  in CDP

Two signs  in GC (→GE), FE & EE
..

It is unclear whether according to Chopin diminuendo in these bars was supposed to be divided in two sections or not. In GC and CDP, bar 13 opens a new line of the text, hence it was most probably the same in [A]. In such a situation, two subsequent  or  signs were treated as equal to one, longer hairpins in Chopin's times. As two out of three sources based probably on [A] (GC and EE or FE) have divided signs and only one (CDP) – combined, in the main text we adopt the first notation.
However, most probably these bars, independently from the notation, are supposed to be embraced with one diminuendo wave, as it was unambiguously indicated in analogous bars 31-32.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Hairpins denoting continuation

b. 12-14

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

 in FC (→GE)

 in FE & EE
..

The sources differ in the moment when the  hairpins start. To the main text we adopt the version of FC (→GE), in which the earlier beginning of the sign is synchronised with the harmonic change. We discuss the issue of the ending of the hairpins in the note concerning .

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins