mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Balakirev's revisions

b. 21-24

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

3 slurs in bars 22 & 24 in A1, literal reading

w slurs in bars 22 & 24 in A1, contextual interpretation

Supplemented A1 slurs, our alternative suggestion

No slurs in CJ, CK & EL

8 slurs in CB

[legato] suggested by the editors
..

In the fragment (b. 21-32) that starts here we can encounter a few L.H. slurs marked in a draft manner in A1 – two slurs in b. 22 and one in b. 24. It is only the latter that encompasses an entire four-quaver figure; however, it seems that both earlier ones, although much shorter, bear the same meaning. According to us, Chopin wrote these slurs only just the second time, since the first time (b. 21 and 23) he focused on writing new accompaniment figures correctly. There is no doubt that all bars are to be performed similarly, which leads to our alternative suggestion to add slurs. Since [A] (→CJ,CK) does not feature any slurs in these bars, in the main text we suggest repeating the indication legato, used in b. 6-7, instead.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Balakirev's revisions

b. 21-24

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

..

None of the six necessary naturals lowering d2(1) to d2(1) are present in CJ and CK, which is a striking example of overlooked accidentals of a current key. This is even more of anomaly given that the first two R.H. naturals are written in A1. CB and EL contain the correct text.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omission of current key accidentals , Balakirev's revisions , Revisions in EL

b. 23-24

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No signs in A1

  in CJ & CK

  in CB

  in EL
..

The manuscripts conveying the text of [A2] are pretty united on the range of the dynamic hairpins in these bars (A1 is devoid of such marks). The whole-bar marks of EL are an arbitrary decision of Kolberg or the engraver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Balakirev's revisions , Revisions in EL

b. 26

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No sign in A1

Long accent in CJ, possible reading

Long accent in CK

in CB

 in EL
..

The marks in CJ and CK look like long accents, although the one in CJ is written a quaver later. Having compared it with similar b. 22, we consider the mark of CK to be more accurate. The versions of CB and EL cannot be authentic; however, the diminuendo hairpin in EL is one of the possible interpretations of the manuscripts.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in JC , Balakirev's revisions

b. 29-30

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No marks in A1

& > in CJ & CK

& > in CB

i > in EL
..

In CJ and CK the accent in b. 30 is clearly shorter than the mark in b. 29, hence we interpret them as a short and long accent, respectively. It is compliant with the harmonic and rhythmic context of the accented notes – e2 in b. 29 creates a tense delay, whereas d2 in b. 30 is merely a dance syncopation. In CB and EL the mark in b. 29 was reproduced as a diminuendo hairpin; moreover, EL extended it so that it fills the entire 2nd half of the bar (cf. b. 23-24).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Balakirev's revisions , Revisions in EL