Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

  b. 40-56

		No accidental in As & A (→FE→EEC) – f2
		in AI – f2
		in GE & EEW1 (→EEW2) – f2

The sound of the last note in bars 40 and 56 may raise certain doubts. When working on the Waltz, Chopin certainly considered two versions – f² and f². The first one was f², written in As in an undisputed way, as not only is there no  before this note, but there is also no f¹ at the beginning of the bar, which could possibly influence the way of interpreting the last note due to the Chopin labile rules of validity of accidentals (the draft has two versions of the melody in bars 39-40, both different from the final version).

Subsequently, in AI Chopin gave the preceding melodic phrase the final form (in relation to the 2nd version written in As he changed only two notes – the last one in bar 39 and first in bar 40), by introducing f¹ at the beginning of bar 40. At the same time, he put a distinct  before the last quaver in this bar, changing it to f².

A problem arises only in A. Its version (written twice – in bars 40 and 56) is generally identical with the version of AI, however, there is no  before the last note. In accordance with the "official" rules, it should be then interpreted as a f², yet Chopin was not always consistent in this respect, as a result of which the absence of  does not give an absolute certainty, as far as his intentions are concerned. For example, in the Nocturne in B major, Op. 62 No. 1, bar 71, after f¹ at the beginning of the turn in one of two preserved autographs there are already no accidentals, yet in the second there is a cautionary  before f². In fact, the cautionary sign does not change the rule, yet it confirms the existence of doubts (interestingly enough, in the French edition of the Nocturne, based on an autograph without a  and corrected with Chopin's participation, a  was added in this place, thus introducing f² and creating a variant similar to the one discussed in the Waltz). However, the doubts do not give the basis for interpreting the text of A differently than in a literal way and compatible with the prevailing norm, hence as a f².

Similarly in bars 104 and 120 and 168 and 184, which, as a repetition of bars 40 and 56, were not written out in the manuscripts. However, the text of FE brings a surprise in bars 104 and 168 – one can see there traces of deleting the  from before the discussed note. Even when leaving out the issue of why the changes were performed only in two out of six analogous places, the fact seems to be highly puzzling – someone had to add these cautionary signs, if they are not in A, and someone had to delete them afterwards, in spite of the fact that this burdensome activity for the engraver generally does not influence the sound. The person could have been either the reviser or Chopin, at the same time, it is impossible to state who added the signs and who deleted them. Since it is only Chopin's interventions that are meaningful for the determination of the text, below we analyse various variants of his participation in the described proofreadings:

• Both addition and deletion of sharps happened without Chopin's participation. This possibility does not introduce new elements to the analysis performed above;
• Chopin added sharps and someone deleted them. It seems to be highly unlikely, however, if it was so, it would confirm our assumption that Chopin's final decision in these places was a f²;
• Chopin deleted sharps (then it is meaningless who was the person who added them). It is a more likely scenario, leading to a surprising conclusion that the composer did not want to entirely define the sound of this note, as if he left the choice of one of two possibilities (with f² having an advantage) to the performer's intuition...

In the main text we suggest a clarified text – f² with a  – of the latest version, written in A. The variants of the notation appearing in the sources offer, however, a possibility of choosing both the version with a f² and the version without an accidental before this note.

The version of EEC is certainly erroneous.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: Accidentals in different octaves, Chopin's hesitations, Main-line changes

notation: Pitch

Go to the music