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
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 14

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

Staccato dot in A1

No mark in CJ, CK (→CB) & EL
..

We do not include the staccato dot from A1 in the main text, since Chopin most probably did not repeat it in [A2], but wrote a slur, which is conveyed by CJ. The indications can be considered complementary; however, we take into account the fact that Chopin could have considered the dot to be superfluous after having put the slur.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 15

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No sign in A1 & CB

in CJ & CK

in EL

 suggested by the editors
..

The compliance between CJ and CK allows us to believe that the  hairpin before the penultimate triplet reproduced the notation of [A2]. Nevertheless, in the main text we slightly extend this mark after analogous b. 48 – in this context, a diminuendo naturally leads us to the final note of the run, and the notation of the autograph could have been inaccurate. This idea was fully implemented in EL, most probably also on the basis of comparison with b. 48.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Balakirev's revisions , Revisions in EL

b. 16

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No markings in A1 & CB

Pause in CK & EL

Slur & long accent suggested by the editors
..

The indications concerning the a1 note at the beginning of the bar raise serious doubts due to the sources based on [A2] being incompatible – CJ and CK. In the main text we give an interpretation of the notation of CJ, in which both visible elements – slur and short  hairpin – can be quite easily and reasonably interpreted as a tenuto mark and a long accent. In turn, in CK the similarly placed yet much smaller elements actually resemble a fermata (this is how they were reproduced in EL), which is completely unjustified in this place.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in CK

b. 17-20

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

Long accent in bar 19 in A1

Long & 3 short accents in CJ

4 short accents in CK, literal reading

4 long accents in CJ & CK, contextual interpretation

Short accents in bars 19-20 in CB

Long & 2 short accents in bars 18-20 in EL
..

It is only the first out of the four accents written in these bars in [A2] (→CJ,CK) that can be considered an unequivocal long accent on the basis of CJ. In this copy, the shape of the three remaining ones is the one of short accents, yet a confrontation with the specifically moved marks in CK leads us to the conclusion that they were most probably long accents in [A2]. In CK the marks in b. 17-18 are moved to such an extent that it is difficult to guess the intention of the writer without CJ (it may be the reason why both were omitted in CB, while the former also in EL).

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

issues: Long accents

b. 18

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No sign in A1, CK (→CB) & EL

 in CJ, literal reading

 suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we include the  hairpin written in CJ, slightly adjusting its range to the shape of the melodic line. The absence of the mark in CK and its derivative sources is probably Kolberg's oversight – cf. the next note.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in CK