mUltimate Chopin

Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 89-92

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

  in A (→FE→EEC,GE1op,GE1no2→GE2no2)

  in EEW1 (→EEW2)

  in GE2op→GE3op)
..

In the majority of the editions, the range of hairpin in these bars was reproduced exactly after A (→FE). The only exceptions are EEW1 (→EEW2), in which the  begins only in bar 90, and GE2op (→GE3op), in which the entire sign was moved a crotchet earlier; moreover, the next dynamic hairpin, in bars 91-92, was shortened.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , EE inaccuracies

b. 91-92

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

d3 repeated in As, AI & A (→FE→EEC,EEW1)

d3 tied in GE & EEW2
..

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

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

b. 92-93

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

As

AI

A (→FE→GE,EE)
..

The visible evolution of the accompanying part generally consisted in an each time earlier introduction of the diminished seventh chord – in As on the last beat of bar 93, in AI – a crotchet earlier, in the version intended for print – already in bar 92. In both earlier autographs, the bars are an exact repetition of bars 76-77 (also in the melodic line); in turn, in the final version, Chopin clearly differentiated between the mood of the phrase's climax – for the first time, the diminished chord naturally introduces a D major cadence; for the second time, the harmonic course is dramatically suspended on this chord, whereas the descending phrase in the R.H. carefully avoids any associations with the D major key.
In FE, there is no  raising g1 to g1 in bar 93, which became necessary after a 5th flat in the key signature was added – cf. bars 64-96. The inadvertence was corrected in EE. The sign was added – unnecessarily – also in GE2no2.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Accompaniment changes

b. 93

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

Staccato dot in A (→FE→GE1no2,EEC)

No mark in GE1op (→GE2op→GE3op), EEW1 (→EEW2) & GE2no2
..

The majority of the editions omit a staccato dot written in A (→FE→GE1no2,EEC) above the last L.H. chord. The sign only make sense with the final version of the L.H. part – see note to bars 92-93.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 97

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

No sign in A (→FE→EE,GE1op,GE1no2)

 in GE2op (→GE3op) & GE2no2
..

The absence of the  sign in A could be considered an inaccuracy related to the transition to the abbreviated notation from the next bar. In this kind of situations, the notation in the bar that initiates a non-written out section is often of a partially draft nature – cf., e.g., the Polonaise in E minor, Op. 26 No. 2, bar 105. Paradoxically, the more exactly Chopin wrote such a bar, the higher a chance of a misunderstanding, since the engravers would consider the notation to be complete – cf., e.g., the Polonaise in E minor, Op. 26 No. 2, bar 49. However, in this case it is not certain, since the indications in this bar actually seem to be complete – tempo, slur, pedalling. What is more, in the next empty bar, Chopin wrote a hairpin, as if he wanted to emphasise that it is to be considered only from bar 98. In this situation, in the main text we leave the notation of A without any changes, whereas the sign added in later GE may be considered an acceptable addition. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions