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

Slurs

b. 85-86

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

Slurs in AI, literal reading

Slurs in AI, contextual interpretation

Slur in A (→FE→GE,EE)
..

We consider the fact of leaving the g1 minim without a slur in AI to be an inaccuracy of notation, similar to the one visible in bar 75. The phrasing of the version intended for print corresponds to natural divisions between the phrases, marked by rests. Since the slurrings of AI and A are closely related to the rhythmic structure of the phrases, corresponding variants are included in the note on bars 84-86, dedicated to various variants of the melody.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 85-88

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

..

In AI, the slur begins a bar earlier than in the version prepared for print, from the g2 crotchet. The ending of the slur also falls earlier in this manuscript, at the end of bar 88. Since the slurring of both versions is strictly related to the shape of the melodic line, corresponding variants are included in the note concerning this issue.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 91

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

Slur from bar 93 in As

Slurs in AI, literal reading

Slurs in AI, contextual interpretation

Continuous slur in A (→FE→GE,EE)
..

The slur of As, written over the 3rd version of these bars and probably applying also to the 4th version, is most probably only an origin of a slur leading to bar 97.
As far as the notation of AI is concerned, it is difficult to regard the absence of slurs in bar 91 as Chopin's intention, in particular considering the fact that the ending of the slur in bar 90, the last one in the line of the text, clearly suggests its continuation. According to us, Chopin most probably wanted to repeat the slurring of analogous bar 75. In the main text, we adopt the continuous slur of A and the editions.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 92-93

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

Slurs written in FES

No slurs in remaining sources

Our variant suggestion
..

Two slurs, written in pencil, probably by Chopin, indicate natural positions of the hand. The slurs only make sense with the final version of the L.H. part – see neighbouring note.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES

b. 97-98

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

No slurs in As

Slur in AI

Slurs in A & EE

Slurs in FE (→GE)
..

In As there are no slurs in these bars, whereas in AI a slur – unclear – is written only in bar 98, being a repetition of bar 34. In the main text, we give the slurs of A, since their authenticity – despite quite a careless notation – seems to be unquestionable. The slurs of FE (→GE) may be a result of Chopin's proofreading, yet, due to the lack of visible traces of performing changes in print, it is not certain. How it occurred that all EE include, accordingly, a version different from the version of FE, what is more, identical with the text of A, remains unclear.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies