mUltimate Chopin

Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 21-22

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

 in A, EEw1 (→EEW2) & GE2op (→GE3op)

 in FE (→GE1op,GE1no2)

 in EEC & GE2no2
..

The  hairpin was inaccurately reproduced in the editions – already in FE (→GE1op,GE1no2) the sign is clearly shorter, which in the remaining editions was subject to further distortions or revisions. The compatibility of the sign's range in A and GE2op (→GE3op) and EEW is a result of overlapping of arbitrary, yet contrary changes.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies

b. 33-44

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

 signs in A

 signs in FE

 signs in GE & EE
..

In the main text we reproduce the dynamic hairpin strictly on the basis of A. In FE the signs were generally slightly extended, however, in the first five bars they can be considered to be compatible with A. In turn, the  signs in bars 41-44 are clearly longer (of a similar length as in bars 33-37). In the remaining editions all  signs were reproduced practically in the same length, generally corresponding to the entire quaver beam. In bar 38 and 39-40 the differences are more distinct; we discuss these bars separately.

In the previous manuscripts there are no signs of this kind (in the entire Waltz – cf. bar 1), there is also no accent in bar 39.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 38

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

Shorter  in A

Longer  in FE (→GE,EE)
..

The  sign in this bar in A is shorter than in the previous ones, which may be perhaps related simply to a different graphic layout (the quaver beam pointed upwards). In spite of that, in FE (→GE,EE) it was reproduced as a whole-bar sign, which almost certainly is a result of the engraver's distraction.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 39-40

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

 in A

 in FE

 in GE

 in EEC

 in EEW1 (→EEW2)
..

In the main text we give the  sign written in A. It was reproduced inaccurately already in FE, by moving it one quaver earlier. Minor changes in the range were introduced also in GE and EEW, while in EEC the hairpin was extended on two entire bars.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies

b. 45-64

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

Shorter  in A & GE1op (→GE2op→GE3op)

Longer  in FE (→EE,GE1no2→GE2no2)
..

The  hairpin in bars 45-48 is only in the version prepared for print; in FE the sign begins earlier than in A. The remaining editions convey the version of FE more or less accurately – in GE1op the signs are slightly shorter, almost the same as in A, while in EE and GEno2 they are slightly longer. Since the exact differences are of no practical meaning here, we divide them into two groups, corresponding with the range either to the sign in A or in FE.
In bars 61-64 the hairpin is absent in the previous manuscripts, there are also no differences in the length of the sign in the remaining sources.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins