mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 1-32

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

..

In A the  asterisks are put either after the 3rd crotchet in the bar (or a corresponding it rest) or before, depending on the fact whether the entire bar is based on the same chord or not. In FE the differentiation was lost – all signs are put either under or slightly after the 3rd crotchet (rest), whereas the differences are not related to the notation of A (or – consequently – to the harmony). The remaining editions reproduce the version of FE more or less accurately, although in GE the signs are generally placed after the 3rd crotchet, while in EE – rather below. In our transcriptions of particular sources, we assume that the asterisks placed in an inaccurate manner – most often slightly after the 3rd crotchet – are considered by us to be compatible with the majority of such signs in a given phrase of a discussed source.

A few particular situations – bars 4, 15, 20, 22, 24, 29, 30 and 31 – are discussed separately.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies

b. 1-32

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

..

In the previous autographs – As and AI – there are no dynamic signs. We do not record this fact in further, detailed notes on this group of signs. See the note on the tempo indication.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 1-32

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

No indication in As & AI

in A (→FE→GE,EE)
..

In the previous autographs – As and AI – there is no tempo indication or any other interpretative indications apart from slurs. We do not record this absence in further notes on dynamic hairpins, verbal indications or pedalling.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 1-2

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

..

In AI, in which there is no upbeat, the slur begins from the first sixth.
Generally, the slurring of AI is fragmentary – beside a few single slurs, it embraces only bars 1-8 and 17-25 and 65-96. Due to this fact, we do not consider the absence of slurs throughout longer sections to be variants and we do not discuss it in detail, since it does not convey any message concerning the performance.

In As the slurs appear only occasionally, in bars 10, 32 and 89, and it is only there where we mention the slurring of the draft.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 1

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

in AI

in A

in FE

in GE

in EEC

in EEW1 (→EEW2)
..

The dedication, both in A and in FE (→EEW1→EEW2), determines the same person – baroness Charlotte de Rothschild, Nathaniel's wife. In the main text, we give an expression used in FE, being the official way of presenting a married woman in France. It is unclear why the dedication was left out in GE and EEC – in spite of a collective cover for three (in EEC two) Waltzes, it could have been placed, e.g., on the first page of the note text. In the case of GE, the reason could have been a possible absence of cover in the proof copy of FE, being the basis for GE, since the dedication was placed in FE only on the cover.

As does not include either the title or the dedication. The dedication is also absent in AI, although it is known that the autograph was offered to baroness de Rothschild.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Dedications , GE revisions