Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins
b. 18
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor
..
In the main text we give the hairpin entered most probably by Chopin into FC. We consider the top arm to be reliable, corresponding to the range of an analogous mark in bar 26. In GE the mark was led to the c2 quaver ending the bar, which suggests a longer crescendo than the one resulting from the Chopinesque entry. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Authentic corrections of FC |
||||||||
b. 26
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor
..
As in bar 18, in the main text we give the hairpin entered almost certainly by Chopin into FC. In GE the mark was clearly extended, which can interfere with the performance manner intended by Chopin. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Authentic corrections of FC |
||||||||
b. 28-30
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor
..
Chopin added the hairpins in FC, as was the case with the majority of the remaining dynamic marks in this Mazurka. GE partially adjusted the range of the marks to full bars, which in this case was justified to a certain extent, due to the transition to a new page starting from bar 29. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC |
||||||||
b. 43
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor
..
In a different situation, the mark, added by Chopin in FC, could be considered a long accent on the 3rd beat of the bar. However, in this case, a comparison with analogous bars 7 and 15 reveals that it is the interpretation adopted by GE that is correct – a hairpin from the 2nd beat to the end of the bar. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Authentic corrections of FC |