Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins
b. 7-8
|
composition: Op. 25 No 2, Etude in F minor
..
The missing in GC (→GE) is probably the copyist's oversight. Among marginal differences in the range of signs in particular sources, only the shorter hairpins of AW may suggest a slightly different shaping of the nuance. In the main text, we give the hairpins on the basis of FE (and CDP). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors of GC |
||||||||||||
b. 10-11
|
composition: Op. 25 No 2, Etude in F minor
..
All three ranges of the sign are most probably authentic. In the main text we give the hairpins on the basis of GC (→GE). The range of the sign in these sources is in the middle between the hairpins in AW and those in CDP, FE and EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins |
||||||||||||
b. 12-13
|
composition: Op. 25 No 2, Etude in F minor
..
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. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Hairpins denoting continuation |
||||||||||||
b. 37-38
|
composition: Op. 25 No 2, Etude in F minor
..
The presence of a pair of hairpins in CDP suggests that at the moment of performing Stichvorlage copies, they were already written in [A]. Lack of these signs in EE may be explained with the copyist's or engraver's oversight. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins |