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
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 31-32

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

 in A

No sign in FE (→EE,GE1op,GE1no2)

 in GE2op (→GE3op) & GE2no2

Our variant suggestion
..

It is uncertain whether Chopin considered the  sign written in A to be valid or not. The hairpin is absent in FE, yet it does not seem that it was deleted – it is rather an oversight of the engraver. On the other hand, in analogous bars 159-160 both A and the editions include a contrary sign, , so that one can ponder whether Chopin could have committed a mistake by writing here . Taking into account the above observations, in the main text we leave the inclusion of  at the discretion of the performer.

The  sign in later GE was certainly added on the basis of comparison with the reprise.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

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. 39

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

..

EEC overlooked the accent on the 1st quaver of the bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE