Issues : EE revisions
|
b. 142-144
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
EEW1 overlooked the category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |
||||||
|
b. 157-158
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
While writing this place in A for the second time, Chopin overlooked the slur over the part of the L.H. (cf. bars 29-30). According to us, it can be considered an inaccuracy, hence in the main text we suggest to complete the slur. A similar addition was performed in later GE and EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 168-184
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
Due to the doubts concerning the sound of the last quaver in bars 168 and 184 – it is not entirely certain whether and which of the versions was considered by Chopin to be the final one – we give all possibilities appearing in the sources, in spite of the fact that the version with f
In the main text we adopt an interpretation of A compatible with the valid norm, specifying it with a cautionary category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 168
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
The absence of pedalling in this bar is undoubtedly a mistake of the engraver of FE (→GE1op,GE1no2,EEW1). At the last appearance of this section, more mistakes in reproduction of the pedalling were committed in FE, which may be related to the necessity of working on two pages of the manuscript at the same time (cf. bars 173-174 and 188). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 173-189
|
composition: Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor
..
Same as in four previous analogous places, in bar 173 Chopin added an a1 note in the last proofreading of FE (→EE). We consider the absence of a respective addition in bar 189 to be an oversight (of the composer or the engraver), although a possibility of intentionally leaving the last repetition of this phrase in a slightly different form cannot be, obviously, excluded. It was considered to be a mistake already by the reviser of EEW1 (→EEW2). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Omitted correction of an analogous place |
hairpin. 
2
in bar 40 in 
2
in 
