mUltimate Chopin

Op. 42, Waltz in A♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in GE

b. 165

composition: Op. 42, Waltz in A♭ major

..

GE1 has a misplaced bass clef between the 1st and 2nd quavers in the L.H.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 170

composition: Op. 42, Waltz in A♭ major

..

On the 4th quaver GE1 has an erroneous g3. This typical Terzverschreibung of the engraver was already corrected in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error

b. 236

composition: Op. 42, Waltz in A♭ major

Crotchet in EE, possible interpretation of FE0 (→FE)

Quaver in GE—another interpretation of FE0 (→FEG)
..

In FE (→FEG) the 3rd chord in the L.H. is a crotchet, in spite of the fact that it is followed by a quaver rest. This patent error can be interpreted in two ways: 

  • the engraver inserted the rest by mistake instead of the bass clef (see also: the adjacent note);
  • the engraver could have overlooked both the stem of the quaver and the change of the clef.

As the L.H. has crotchets in similar situations in the Waltz, we consider the first possibility to be more plausible. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in GE

b. 237

composition: Op. 42, Waltz in A♭ major

..

In FE0 (→FE,FEG→GE1) the change of the clef was overlooked. It is possible that the engraver wrote here a quaver rest by mistake instead of the required bass clef, as in FE the 3rd chord in the L.H. is a crotchet (see: the previous note). The clef was introduced already in GE2 (→GE3), EE also has the correct notation.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in GE

b. 237

composition: Op. 42, Waltz in A♭ major

 in EE, contextual interpretation of FEG

 in FE1

No marking in FE0 (→GE)
..

It is not clear what Chopin wanted to underline with the  mark: a sudden change of the chord at the beginning of the bar or the signal chord motif after the rest. The first possibility is suggested by the composer's entry in FEG (which was, after all, not included in GE) and the notation of EE, while the second one – by the notation of FE. It must be emphasised that even the fact of writing this mark under the rests, as it is in FE, does not exclude its validity from the beginning of the bar (possible examples of using such a manner – the Etude in C major, Op. 10 No. 1, bar 45 or in G, Op. 10 No. 5, bars 34-35).  

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

issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of GE , Centrally placed marks , Authentic corrections of EE