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. 39-55

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

f-b in As & AI

Rest in A (→FE→GE,EE)
..

In the version prepared for print, Chopin resigned from the strike of the L.H. on the 2nd beat of the bar, which seems to be a significant improvement, both in terms of sound and piano performance.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Accompaniment changes

b. 39

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

Slur from 1st quaver in A, GE & EE

Slur from 2nd quaver in FE
..

It is not clear how the shift of the beginning of the slur in FE occurred – one may assume Chopin's proofreading, yet an erroneous interpretation of A by the engraver seems to be much more likely, perhaps provoked by the shape of the left ending of the handwritten slur. Starting the slur from the beginning of the bar is supported by the slur beginning in analogous bar 55. A comparison with this bar could have contributed to leaving out the version of FE by GE and EE based on it. Similarly in bars 103 and 167.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 40-56

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

No accidental in As & A (→FE→EEC) – f2

 in AI – f2

 in GE & EEW1 (→EEW2) – f2
..

On the last quaver of bars 40 and 56, both f2 in As and f2 in AI are written in a way that does not raise any doubts. It proves that while working on the Waltz, Chopin certainly considered two versions of this note. In this situation, leaving it in A (→FE) without an accidental does not allow interpreting Chopin's intention with an absolute certainty. In the main text, we assume an interpretation compatible with the valid norm, however, we specify the sound with a cautionary .

The version of EEC is certainly erroneous.

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

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

b. 40

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

Fingering written into FED

No teaching fingering
..

The fingering in FED could have been written by Chopin.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED

b. 40-56

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

Chords in As & AI

Sixths in A (→FE→GE,EE)
..

In bar 40, lighter in sound and more convenient in terms of piano interpretation sixths of A (→FE→GE,EE) must be considered an improvement of the accompaniment. Similarly in bar 56, as well as 104 and 120, which are not written out in As and AI.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Accompaniment changes