mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 12-13

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

No sign in Afrag

 in A1 (literal reading→FE1)

 in A1, contextual interpretation

in GE & EE
..

According to us, the  hairpin written in A1 is to be interpreted as ending before the  indication in b. 13. It is most likely that Chopin first wrote the top arm (perhaps before entering ) and then indicated the end of the mark with the ending of the bottom arm. Such an interpretation is confirmed by the mark of A1 in b. 36 and the notation of GE based on [A2] (in GE2 the mark was shortened with respect to GE1, which does not influence its meaning). In FE the mark was interpreted according to the length of the top arm; moreover, FE2 reproduced it inaccurately. It remains unclear how come that the mark was shortened in EE – perhaps by analogy with b. 36. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Corrections in A , EE inaccuracies , Hairpins denoting continuation , Inaccuracies in A

b. 12

composition: Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor

 in A & GE

 in FC & CGS

 in FE (→EE)
..

The  mark is written in A inaccurately – the top arm is clearly shorter than the bottom one. We assume the top one, written first, to be reliable. The starting point of the mark raises other doubts – strictly speaking, it is difficult to reconcile a long accent over c1 with a crescendo beginning from this very note. Consciously or not, that aspect was taken into account by the copyists independently – both in FC and CGS the mark begins from the next quaver. In general, that mark was reproduced strictly in accordance with the Stichvorlage only in EE.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 13

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

 in A (probable interpretation) & GE2no2

 in A, possible interpretation

 in FE (→EEC,GE1no2,GE1op→GE2op→GE3op)

in EEW
..

The range of the  hairpin written in A is unclear – the top arm seems to be much longer than the bottom one. The respective sign in FE (→EEC, the majority of GE) perhaps corresponds to the range of the bottom arm of the hairpin of A. In the main text, we suggest an averaged range of the sign, which then leads to the topmost note of the melody; a similar length of the sign is also – as a result of revision – in GE2no2. Alternatively, one can take into account the top arm, written probably first – such a longer hairpin determines the peak of crescendo practically at the beginning of the next bar. The lack of continuation of the sign in bar 13 in EEW results almost certainly from the division into great staves – in this edition bar 13 opens a new line.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 14

composition: Op. 29, Impromptu in A♭ major

 
 
 
..

The sources differ in the range of dynamic hairpins. A's notation is ambiguous ‒ the lower arm is much shorter. Half-bar hairpins of GE are clearly longer than in A, on which the edition was based. It is a typical example of the manner of adjusting marks to the metric units.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Unclear hairpins in A

b. 14-15

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I

The longest  in GC
..

The differences in the length of the  hairpin must be of accidental nature. In the main text we reproduce the notation of the principal source, i.e. FE (see General Editorial Principles and the characterisation of FE4). 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins