mUltimate Chopin

Op. 64 No 1, Waltz in D♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Corrections in A

b. 19

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

a-c1-g1 in As, AII, AIII & FE (→GE,EE), possible reading of A

c1-g1 in AI, different reading of A
..

On the basis of the photocopy of A we have at our disposal, it is difficult to state whether on the 2nd and 3rd crotchets in bar 19 Chopin wanted to have a notes or not. FE (→GE,EE) includes a-c1-g1 chords, however, the engraver could have mistaken this bar with bar 17. A few different versions, which are included in bars 11-12 and 19-20 in the accompaniment of As, AI, AII and AIII, as well as deletions performed in these bars in A prove that Chopin was looking for the smartest version, as far as the sound and piano issues are concerned, until the very end. Giving bars 11 and 19 the same form seems to be justified due to the sound economy and thinking with pairs of bars (bars 17-18 and 19-20), therefore, we give this version in the main text.
Similarly in bar 91.

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

issues: Corrections in A , Accompaniment changes

b. 20

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

e, chord & A in As, literal reading

e & 2 chords in As, contextual reconstruction

Minim a & 2 fifths in AI & AII

Crotchet a & 2 fifths in AIII

Crotchet a, fifth & A in A (→FE→GE,EE)
..

In this bar, the differences between the presentation autographs and the final version result from the need for a smooth transition with the next bar, in which Chopin used a different version of accompaniment, while writing autographs-gifts and yet another one, while preparing the Waltz for print. Therefore, the presented variants may be rationally used only with a corresponding version of bars 21-24. The notation of As is problematic, as Chopin did not write a version of bar 20 which would combine with the tenor-linear version of the L.H., written in the sketch as second and adopted in our reconstruction of As – see bars 21-24 – at all. We assume that the situation implies repetition of the version of bars 9, 11 and 18.

Moreover, it seems to be incomprehensible why the correction of the version of As, which is clear in A, was not initially included by the engraver of FE neither in this bar nor in its repetition in the reprise, as a result of which it had to be redone in the proofreading of this edition. It suggests adding changes in A already after having engraved FE, probably at the time of proofreading. Cf. Polonaise in E minor, Op. 26 No. 1, bar 20.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Corrections in A , Accompaniment changes , Authentic corrections of FE