mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Balakirev's revisions

b. 58

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No mark in A1 & EL

Accent on a1 in CJ & CK

Accent on g1 in CB
..

In the main text we give the accent of [A2] (→CJ,CK). The accent having been moved over the minim is Balakirev's mistake or revision, who placed accents over each of the three g1 minims in b. 58-60.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Balakirev's revisions

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. 59-60

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No marks in A1 & EL

Accent in bar 60 in CJ

Accent in bar 59 in CK

2 accents in CB

2 long accents, our alternative suggestion
..

Since both CJ and CK are based on [A2], their differing versions cannot be true at the same time. However, there are no grounds to consider one of them to be more likely than the other. According to us, it is also likely that according to Chopin's intention, it was both minims that were supposed to be accented – it could have been Chopin himself that overlooked it in [A2] or both copyists at the same time. This version was implemented in CB, and we suggest it in the main text. As an alternative solution we suggest two long accents, whose application in this context – long notes – is closer to the Chopinesque practices concerning the choice of accents.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , Errors of JC , Balakirev's revisions , Errors in CK

b. 60

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

rall. in A1

delicatiss. & rallent. in CJ i CK

delicatissimo in CB

delicatiss. & rallent. in EL
..

Just like in the previous bar, in the main text we include delicatiss. present in the sources coming from [A2] – CJ, CK (→CB) and EL. In the earlier copies – CJ and CK – the indication is placed centrally under the R.H. run. The omission of rallent. in CB is Balakirev's revision, who replaced three authentic indications in b. 60-63 with one in b. 62-64. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Centrally placed marks , Balakirev's revisions

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