mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Revisions in EL

b. 58

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

 & velociss. in A1, literal reading

 & velociss. in A1, contextual interpretation

sempre più piano in CJ & CK

sempre più  in CB

delicat. & sempre più piano in EL

sempre più piano suggested by the editors
..

In A1 both indications –  and velociss. – are written close to the middle of the 2nd half of the bar, which certainly does not directly translate into the performance in this context – neither  nor velociss. can start to be valid only just in the second quarter of the run, where they are placed. Therefore, it is a striking example of indications placed near the middle of their scope; therefore, in the substantive transcription of A1 we move them to the beginning of the run. The fact that sempre più piano was placed in CJ and CK under the bottom stave probably corresponds to the notation of [A2]; however, it could have been forced by the lack of space between the staves. According to us, this indication applies not only to the L.H. part, but to the entire musical course in a longer perspective than the   hairpins, which concern the run only – cf. the indications in the next bars: delicato, delicatissimo,  and . The changes and additions performed to the indication in CB and EL cannot be authentic.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Centrally placed marks , Balakirev's revisions , Revisions in EL

b. 58

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

  in A1

  in CJ

  in CK

  in CB

  in EL
..

The   dynamic hairpins in the copies based directly on [A2] quite significantly differ in their range, although both in CJ and CK the marks are placed more or less symmetrically with respect to the centre of the run. Therefore, one may assume that the situation in [A2] was similar, which points to a more careful notation than in A1. In the main text we reproduce the notation of CK, which does not raise any stylistic doubts, and which probably reproduced the notation of [A2] more faithfully than CJ. The hairpins in EL, adjusted to the semiquaver beaming and maximally extended, must be a result of an editorial revision.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in JC , Revisions in EL

b. 61-64

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

dim.  dim. in A1

 e rall. in CJ

 rall. in CK

rallen - tan - do in CB

rall. in EL
..

The dynamic and agogic indications of the final four-bar section clearly differ in the particular sources. However, only two basic versions are authentic – A1 and CJ and CK (the differences between both copies based on [A2] concern insignificant details only). The close resemblance of the version of CB to the one of EL is puzzling – according to us, however, the coincidence does not point to a common source, which is contradicted by other numerous differences between these sources, but to a similar way of thinking of Balakirev and the reviser of EL, who strived for simplified notation.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Balakirev's revisions , Revisions in EL

b. 63

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

..

There is no accidental before the 6th L.H. quaver in A1, CJ 7 CK. The inaccuracy, frequent in Chopin's works, was corrected in CB & EL.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in A , Balakirev's revisions , Revisions in EL