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. 45-47

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

2 slurs in A1

Slur in bar 47 in CJ, CK & EL

Slur in bars 46-47 in CB

Our variant suggestion
..

In the main text we suggest the slur over the g1-g2 octave, present only in A1, in a variant form. The slur of CB, repeated after the authentic slur in analogous b. 5-6, is probably an arbitrary addition of Balakirev. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Balakirev's revisions

b. 45

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

..

CJ and CB are lacking in the fermata; they are probably oversights.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of JC

b. 46

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

f in A1

a in CJ, CK (→CB) & EL
..

The version of A1 must be earlier; taking into account the correction introduced in this autograph in analogous b. 5, one can assume that Chopin left it here by inadvertence. Anyway, [A2] must have included a here.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 46

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

Crotchet & semiquavers in A1

Minim & grace notes in CJ, CK (→CB) & EL
..

In the main text we give the version of the later autograph, conveyed by CJ and CK and the remaining, derivative sources.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Main-line changes

b. 47

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

Wedge in A1

Dot in CJ, probable reading

No mark in CK (→CB) & EL
..

The mark written over the c2 crotchet in CJ is not such a typical staccato dot as, e.g. the ones in b. 51, but Ludwika (the copyist) was not very careful in this respect – cf., e.g. the marks that are certainly dots, in b. 30 and 52. Therefore, in the main text we adopt the dot both as the text of CJ and in the main text.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in JC