Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »
b. 76-77
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we give the hairpin written in AF. One can have doubts whether the mark should not be placed earlier, before the return of the main phrase of this section, the way it was reproduced in FE (→EE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins |
||||||||||||
b. 90-92
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we give the hairpin after AF, since the range of the mark in b. 92 seems to be related to the accent on the culminant g2 minim, present only in this autograph; it may also be related to the dotted rhythm preceding the minim (cf. the notation of AI). The longer mark of GE, which most probably reproduces the notation of [AG], may be considered an equal variant. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins |
||||||||||||
b. 100-101
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
A comparison with other sources, as well as with the notation of both autographs in analogous b. 8-9, suggests that the hairpin is too long here in AF. Due to this reason, in the main text we suggest the notation used in an analogous place the first time, which is substantially consistent with the notation of GE1. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Authentic corrections of FE , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||||||
b. 117-118
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
It is the top arm of the hairpin in AF, probably written first, that we consider to be reliable, since it emphasises the accenting nature of this mark. In FE (based on AF) the mark begins slightly later, which allows us to assume that it could have also been in GE that the engraver began the hairpin later in order to avoid an intersection with the bottom voice stem (two bars later the mark is present in GE only, hence without [AG] one cannot say whether Chopin repeated this notation there). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins |
||||||||||||
b. 120-122
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we follow the marks of GE, in which the markings are more accurate in this fragment (pedalling in b. 117-121, in b. 119). The only element we modify is the ending of the mark, since b. 121 closes a line in this edition; therefore, even if the notation of [AG] resembled the one of AF, the engraver could have considered the placement of a very short ending of a hairpin in a new line to be irrational. The version of AF (→FE) can be considered an equal variant. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in EE |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »