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. 58

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

 & velociss. in A1, literal reading

 & velociss. in A1, contextual interpretation

sempre più piano in CJ & CK

sempre più  in CB

delicat. & sempre più piano in EL

sempre più piano suggested by the editors
..

In A1 both indications –  and velociss. – are written close to the middle of the 2nd half of the bar, which certainly does not directly translate into the performance in this context – neither  nor velociss. can start to be valid only just in the second quarter of the run, where they are placed. Therefore, it is a striking example of indications placed near the middle of their scope; therefore, in the substantive transcription of A1 we move them to the beginning of the run. The fact that sempre più piano was placed in CJ and CK under the bottom stave probably corresponds to the notation of [A2]; however, it could have been forced by the lack of space between the staves. According to us, this indication applies not only to the L.H. part, but to the entire musical course in a longer perspective than the   hairpins, which concern the run only – cf. the indications in the next bars: delicato, delicatissimo,  and . The changes and additions performed to the indication in CB and EL cannot be authentic.

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

issues: Centrally placed marks , Balakirev's revisions , Revisions in EL

b. 58

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

Slur in A1, literal reading

No slur in CJ, CK & EL

Slur in A1 (contextual interpretation) & CB
..

The mark visible in A1 over the 2nd and 3rd quavers in the 2nd half of the bar is probably a slur. At the same time, it seems likely that, taking into account the partially draft nature of A1, it is supposed to mark a half-bar slur, which would be natural in this context (cf. b. 22). This figure, just like all the similar ones, is encompassed with a half-bar slur also in CB. In the main text we do not give this slur, omitted by Chopin in [A2] (→CJ,CK).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 58

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

..

The 6th L.H. quaver in EL is an a instead of f, which must be a mistake. See the note at the beginning of the bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Terzverschreibung error

b. 58

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

  in A1

  in CJ

  in CK

  in CB

  in EL
..

The   dynamic hairpins in the copies based directly on [A2] quite significantly differ in their range, although both in CJ and CK the marks are placed more or less symmetrically with respect to the centre of the run. Therefore, one may assume that the situation in [A2] was similar, which points to a more careful notation than in A1. In the main text we reproduce the notation of CK, which does not raise any stylistic doubts, and which probably reproduced the notation of [A2] more faithfully than CJ. The hairpins in EL, adjusted to the semiquaver beaming and maximally extended, must be a result of an editorial revision.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in JC , Revisions in EL

b. 59-60

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No marks in A1 & EL

Accent in bar 60 in CJ

Accent in bar 59 in CK

2 accents in CB

2 long accents, our alternative suggestion
..

Since both CJ and CK are based on [A2], their differing versions cannot be true at the same time. However, there are no grounds to consider one of them to be more likely than the other. According to us, it is also likely that according to Chopin's intention, it was both minims that were supposed to be accented – it could have been Chopin himself that overlooked it in [A2] or both copyists at the same time. This version was implemented in CB, and we suggest it in the main text. As an alternative solution we suggest two long accents, whose application in this context – long notes – is closer to the Chopinesque practices concerning the choice of accents.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , Errors of JC , Balakirev's revisions , Errors in CK