mUltimate Chopin

WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 49

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No sign in A1

in first half of bar in CJ

 in 2nd half of bar in CK (→CB) & EL
..

According to us, it is more likely that this detail was repeated after [A2] more accurately in CJ than in CK (→CB) and EL.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in CK

b. 49

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No slurs in #A!, CK & EL

Slurs in CJ & CB
..

In CJ the slur is written over the 1st group of the L.H. quavers. The second group is marked as repetition of the first, which, in this context, most probably also concerns the slur. There is no reason to question the authenticity of this slur, hence its absence in CK is probably a result of Kolberg's oversight. The slurs in CB are part of a comprehensive revision – see b. 6-19.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Balakirev's revisions , Errors in CK

b. 51

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No markings in A1 & EL

Dots under slur in CJ & CK (→CB)
..

The articulation specified by the slur and dots was introduced by Chopin in [A2] (→CJ,CK). The absence of markings in EL – see b. 5-6.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 52

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

5+5 semiquavers in A1

3+2+6 semiquavers in CJ & CK

2+3+3+3 semiquavers in CB

5+6 semiquavers in EL
..

In the 1st half of the bar the sextuplet is not marked in A1, neither with a digit nor a slur; however, nothing indicates that Chopin could have meant another rhythm. These elements are also absent in CK, which is almost certainly an oversight of the copyist, whose attention was taken by the need to correct the erroneously written first 5 notes of this sextuplet. In turn, it is uncertain how the oversight of all slurs in EL occurred – see b. 5-6.
Kolberg also overlooked the markings in the 2nd half of the bar, confirmed by CJ – staccato dots and the slur over the last beat of the bar. It could have influenced the creation of an arbitrary rhythm and slurring of CB – clearly incomplete slurring of CK and division of the 3rd beat of the bar, musically unjustified without authentic articulation, suggested a possibility of mistakes and inaccuracies in this copy.
The most significant difference appears at the end of this bar – in A1 the 4th beat includes only 5 notes, since there is no e3  between d3 and f3. In the main text we give the later 6-note version on the basis of the most accurate and almost certainly authentic notation of CJ.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Balakirev's revisions , Inaccuracies in CK

b. 52

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

..

Except for the arbitrary, whole-bar slur of CB, all the remaining ones present in the sources are related to irregular groups. Due to this reason, we discuss them in the note concerning rhythmic differences.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Balakirev's revisions , Errors in CK