mUltimate Chopin

Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

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

b. 29

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

in As & AI

in A (→FE→GE,EE)
..

In the version introduced in A (→FE→GE,EE) the harmonic progression is smoother (shift of the d-a fifth to the 2nd beat of the bar) and more elaborate. Moreover, Chopin emphasised the polyphonic value of the bass progression with a slur.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 29-30

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

..

The slur is reasonable only in relation to the final version of the part of the L.H. and it is present only in the sources that include it – A (→FE→GE,EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 30

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

..

In the main text we add a cautionary  before d. A similar addition was introduced in GE2no2.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 30

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

Pedal in A

No pedal in FE (→GE,EE)
..

Same as in bar 22, the absence of pedalling in the editions is almost certainly a mistake of the engraver of FE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 30

composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

a1-e1 in As

g1-f1 in AI & A (→FE→GE,EE)
..

In the original version, written in As, the melodic line develops using the scheme of repeated notes, initiated in bar 10. In the final version, Chopin shaped the melody differently, referring to the scheme only in bar 31.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations