Issues : GE revisions

b. 1-2

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

 in A

 in FE (→EE,GE1no2,GE1opGE2opGE3op)

 in GE2no2

..

Shifting the  hairpin so that it starts from an upbeat, is, according to us, rather an inaccuracy of the engraver of FE, hence, in the main text we give the undoubtedly authentic sign of A. However, since an alternative possibility of Chopin's proofreading in FE cannot be entirely excluded, the version of FE, repeated in all remaining editions except for GE2no2, can be considered to be a potentially authentic variant. In turn, shortening the sign in GE2no2 is undoubtedly a revision, as a part of which the  signs in all analogous bars were unified (bars 1-2, 5-617-18 and 21-22).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 1

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

in AI

in A

in FE

in GE

in EEC

in EEW1 (→EEW2)

..

The dedication, both in A and in FE (→EEW1EEW2), determines the same person – baroness Charlotte de Rothschild, Nathaniel's wife. In the main text, we give an expression used in FE, being the official way of presenting a married woman in France. It is unclear why the dedication was left out in GE and EEC – in spite of a collective cover for three (in EEC two) Waltzes, it could have been placed, e.g., on the first page of the note text. In the case of GE, the reason could have been a possible absence of cover in the proof copy of FE, being the basis for GE, since the dedication was placed in FE only on the cover.

As does not include either the title or the dedication. The dedication is also absent in AI, although it is known that the autograph was offered to baroness de Rothschild.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Dedications , GE revisions

b. 3-19

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

..

In the main text we add a cautionary  before fin bar 3 and 19. In GE2no2 both signs were added, in GE3op – only in bar 19.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 4

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

No pedalling in A (→FEEE,GE1no2,GE1opGE2opGE3op)

Pedalling in #FE2no2

Our suggestion

..

According to us, the absence of pedalling in this bar in A is a result of Chopin's temporary uncertainty on whether and how to mark it, when the harmony changes on the 3rd beat of the bar. It is the first situation of this kind in the Waltz and the composer temporarily considered, as it seems, to sustain the bass note c with hand, like in bar 12 – the visible deletion most probably concerned the c minim. One can assume that the final version could be the pedalling of analogous bar 20, written already after having found a satisfactory solution in bars 8 and 10. Therefore, in the main text we suggest this pedalling; a respective addition was introduced already in GE2no2

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 4-20

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

Slur in bar 20 in A (→FEEE,GE1op,GE1no2)

Slur in bar 4 & 20 in GE2op (→GE3op) & GE2no2

..

The slur, added in later GE in bar 4 certainly after an authentic slur in analogous bar 20, can be considered to be a justified addition to the version of A and the remaining editions. In the main text, however, we preserve the differentiation between bars 4 and 20 in this detail, as it may suggest a subtle performance nuance. (In As and AI, in which the 2nd and 3rd crotchets are identical, the slurs are absent both in bars 4 and 20.) 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions