mUltimate Chopin

Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 5-6

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

 in A & GE3op

No sign in FE (→EEC,EEW1,GE1no2,GE1op→GE2op)

Shorter  in GE2no2 & EEW2
..

The absence of the  hairpin is certainly an oversight of the engraver of FE. The sign was added in GE3op and – in a shortened form – in GE2no2 and EEW2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 5-22

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

Slur over pair of sixths in AI & A

Two slurs in FE (→EE)

Slur e1-d1 in GE1no2 & GE1op (→GE2op→GE3op)

Slur c2-b1 in GE2no2
..

Both slurs over the pair of minims in bars 5-6 and 21-22 in A are clearly longer than in bars 1-2 and 17-18. Similarly in AI (only in bars 5-6, since Chopin overlooked the slur for the second time), hence these are the slurs we give in the main text. Double slurs in FE are probably a result of Chopin's proofreading – initially, the engraver of FE combined with a slur only the bottom notes of the sixths, which led the composer to add upper slurs (the original state was preserved in the majority of GE). According to us, the correction is occasional and it rather confirms the importance of a slur over the notes than proves a change of the slurring concept. Similarly in bars 133-134 and 149-150.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Placement of markings , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 8-25

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

One-bar slurs in AI, A & GE2op (→GE3op)

Two-bar slurs in FE (→EE,GE1op,GE1no2→GE2no2)
..

It is not easy to evaluate how the difference between the slurring of sources in bars 8-9 (and similarly in bars 24-25) occurred. A includes two slurs in both places, although for the first time, when bar 8 appears at the end of the text's line, one could consider the slur in bar 9 to be a continuation of the previous. One-bar slurs are also in AI (except for bar 9, devoid of a slur). In this situation, one has to assume that the slurs of FE (→EE,GE1op,GE1no2→#GE2op2), combined in both places, could have been a result of Chopin's intervention. However, without being sure in this respect, in the main text we give the slurring of A, confirmed by AI. The version of FE, with a phrasing combining structural divisions (cf., e.g., the Waltz in A No. 3, bars 40-41), characteristic for Chopin, particularly in later pieces, can be considered to be (perhaps) an authentic variant.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 8-24

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

..

In bars 8 and 24 there are no accidentals in the part of the L.H. in the autographs. In bar 8 FE added – perhaps at Chopin's request – a cautionary  before d, which was repeated in all editions. In GE and EEW2 a similar addition was performed in bar 24.

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

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 10-11

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

No slur in As, AI & FE (→EE,GE1op,GE1no2)

Slur from 2nd quaver in A

Slur from 1st quaver in GE2op (→GE3op) & GE2no2
..

The absence of slurs both in AI and in FE (→EE,GE1op,GE1no2) certainly does not express Chopin's intentions – in the manuscript the slurs were overlooked until bar 16, whereas FE lacks in them also in bar 12. In FE it is bars 138-139 that prove the accidental oversight, in which a slur compatible with A was most probably added by Chopin in the last stage of proofreading. The phrasing mark is also absent in As, in which, however, Chopin wrote two motivic slurs.
The slurs added in later GE, embracing two entire bars, are a result of revision and they were probably modelled on the authentic slurs in bars 26-29. See also the note on slurs in bars 12-13. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions