mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Balakirev's revisions

b. 1-4

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

Repeated e1 in A1, CJ & CK

d1 in CB

Tied e1 in EL
..

The version of CB featuring d1 as the middle note of the first chord in b. 2 and 4 probably results from the fact that the note was placed too low in CK. In turn, the version of EL with tied e1 is probably an arbitrary change, introduced by Kolberg in the Stichvorlage for this edition.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Balakirev's revisions , Revisions in EL

b. 5

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No slurs in A1, CK & EL

Slurs in CJ & CB
..

The fact that the slurs are featured in CJ only makes us think that they could have been added by Chopin, who might have had the opportunity to go over this copy. However, it is an assumption only that actually does not influence the evaluation of authenticity of these slurs in any way.
The slurs in CB must be an arbitrary addition of the writer, who provided the L.H. part with slurs in the entire piece. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Balakirev's revisions

b. 6-7

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No sign in A1 & EL

in CJ

in CK

in CB

 suggested by the editors
..

A1 is devoid of dynamic hairpins and accents in b. 5-18, which is a result of the working nature of this autograph. To the main text we adopt a mark that was an attempt to reconstruct [A2] on the basis of its two representations in CJ and CK. However, the interpretation of both is subject to some uncertainty due to the use of abridged notation of the L.H. part and in CJ also due to the lack of synchronisation in the notation of the parts of both hands. Consequently, the versions of both copies, and even the interpretation of CK given in CB, may be considered a potentially accurate interpretation of Chopin's intention. The absence of the mark in EL is probably a mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Balakirev's revisions

b. 9-10

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

Slur in CJ

Slurs in CK, literal reading

Slur in CB, contextual interpretation of slurs in CJ & CK
..

We interpret the slurs of CK as an attempt to combine the unnecessarily separated slurs. According to us, the beginnings of the slurs of CJ and CK are probably inaccurate, even if they are not that far from the notation of [A2]. We consider the slur of CB to be the accurate interpretation thereof and thus suggest it in the main text. The absence of the slurs in A1 and EL – see b. 5-7.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Balakirev's revisions , Inaccuracies in CK

b. 13

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

4 notes in A1, CK (→CB) & EL

3 notes in CJ
..

The arguments for adopting the version of CJ as the principal one are as follows:

  • the very "Chopinesque" differentiation between three analogous b. 5, 13 and 46 – the ending of the trill consists in them of 2, 3 and 4 notes, respectively (cf. the reverse change, i.e. addition of a note in the ending of the run in b. 52);
  • a possibility of Kolberg's revision in CK – the g2 note could have been added later, which is indicated by the spaces between the notes (cf. the notation of b. 46 in this manuscript).

The version of the remaining sources can be considered an equal variant, particularly since it cannot be ruled out that in spite of the awkward layout, it was Kolberg that faithfully copied [A2] and Ludwika that committed a mistake.
In CB the grace notes are written as small semiquavers.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Main-line changes , Errors of JC , Kolberg's revisions , Balakirev's revisions