mUltimate Chopin

Op. 64 No 1, Waltz in D♭ major

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

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 87-92

composition: Op. 64 No 1, Waltz in D♭ major

4 hairpins in A

3 hairpins in FE (→EE) & GE2Db→GE3Db→GE4Db)

1 hairpin in GE1Db

2 hairpins in GE1op (→GE2op→#GE3op)

4 hairpins suggested by the editors
..

Generally, the dynamic hairpin in GE is incomplete and erroneous in these bars. The traces visible in FE prove that the mistake was committed first in this edition, which, through a proof copy, went into GE. In FE (→EE) the signs were corrected and completed in the last phase of proofreading, perhaps with Chopin's participation. A possible reason of mistakes of the engraver of FE could have been the abbreviated notation of A with dynamic signs, which could have impeded their assignment to correct bars. In the main text we suggest signs of FE in bars 87-90, analogous to signs in bars 15-18 and perhaps corrected by Chopin. In turn, in bars 91-92 we give signs of A, since in FE the sign in bar 91 was probably accidentally overlooked.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Inaccuracies in A

b. 108

composition: Op. 64 No 1, Waltz in D♭ major

No mark in AI & GE

Long accent in A & EEW1 (→EEW2)

Short accent in FE (→EEC)
..

The accent visible in A has a typical form of long accents. In spite of this, in FE it was reproduced as a short one. The sign in EEW1 (→EEW2) has to be considered to be long, yet the coincidence with the notation of A is most probably accidental. The omission of the accent in GE may be considered to be an oversight, however, it is surprising that the sign is absent in both versions of GE, particularly considering the fact that the same applies to  in the next bar. Therefore, both indications may have been overlooked already in FE and completed in the last proofreading.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , EE inaccuracies