mUltimate Chopin

Op. 64 No 2, Waltz in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in EE

b. 24

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

..

The  sign was overlooked in EEW1, which is certainly an error. The sign was added in EEW2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE

b. 32

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

Slur in As, AI & A (→FE→GE,EEW1→EEW2)

No slur in EEC
..

In the previous autographs the notation of slurs in the ending of this bar and in the next section of the Waltz is unclear. In As the slur starts in bar 32 (at the end of the line), yet it is missing any continuation. In AI one generally cannot see a slur at the end of bar 32, yet the beginning of the slur in bar 33 can be considered to suggest embracing with it also the last crotchet in bar 32, beginning the phrase.

The absence of the slur in EEC is most probably an error. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 33-34

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

Slur in AI (bars 33-34)

Slurs in A (→FE→GE,EEW1→EEW2)

New slur in bar 33 in EEC
..

The slur of AI (slurs?) in bars 33-34 is unclear, as far as its range (does the slur run already from the last crotchet in bar 32 and where does it lead) and continuity (break over the 1st quaver in bar 34) are concerned. According to us, neither the shape nor the range of both parts of the slur indicate an intention of dividing them – the break is most probably a result of a temporary lack of ink. A similar cause could have also provoked abandonment of continuation of the slur. Therefore, we assume that the slur begins in bar 32 and embraces bars 33-34, which may be interpreted as a general signal suggesting performance – its counterpart in a developed notation would have been, e.g., the slur Chopin wrote in analogous bars 49-54 in A. The above observations also apply to bars 48-50. In the remaining bars of this section (bars 35-48 and 51-64) AI does not have any slurs. In As there are no slurs in the entire section (bars 33-64). Both manuscripts are also devoid of dynamic signs and pedalling.

In the main text we give the slurs of A (→FE→GE,EE).

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

issues: Errors in EE , Inaccurate slurs in A

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

b. 76-77

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

 in A

 in FE (→EEW1→EEW2)

No sign in GE & EEC
..

The range of the  hairpin in A is not entirely clear – the mark's arms are of different length and it goes beyond the bar line ending bar 76 and the line of the text. The mark in FE could have been added in the last proofreading, together with the correction of the part of the L.H. – it is indicated by the fact that it was completely omitted in GE. The absence of the mark in EEC is probably due to an oversight. In the main text, we assume a possibly literal interpretation of the sign on the basis of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE