mUltimate Chopin

WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Kolberg's revisions

b. 31

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

Quavers b & a in A1 & CK

Crotchet b & quaver a in CJ

Quavers b & g in CB, contextual interpretation

Crotchet b in EL

Crotchet b & quaver  a suggested by the editors
..

Extending the b quaver to a crotchet, which results in a g(a)-b third at the end of the bar, is probably a specification of notation introduced in [A2]. The additional stem is absent in CK (→CB), whereas in EL this note is a crotchet, since the last quaver was omitted. It is almost certainly Kolberg's revision, suggesting his knowledge of the authentic notation of [A2], although it had not been reproduced in CK – he could have considered the additional stem to be a correction of the text of the last beat of the bar. The aforementioned third leads to a-c1 in the next bar, which is slightly obscured by the Chopinesque simplified orthography (in CB the last quaver is written as g; however, the  raising b to b in the penultimate one was overlooked). In the main text we add a cautionary  to the Chopinesque a.

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

issues: Kolberg's revisions , Balakirev's revisions

b. 32

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

Rhythm & metres in A1, contextual interpretation

Rhythm & metres in CJ

Rhythm & metres in CK

Rhythm & metres in CB

Rhythm & metres in EL

Rhythm & metres suggested by the editors
..

The notation of this bar in CJ and CK may be misleading – it contains 5 crotchets, divided 2+3 with a simultaneous change of tempo so that the 3 crotchets of the second half of the bar last as long as the 2 in the first half. It is evident when one has access to A1, in which the origin and hence the correctness of such an interpretation directly results from the polymetric notation of the 1st half of the bar continued from the previous bars. However, the notation of the aforementioned copies does not offer any hints as to such an interpretation of this notation. Therefore, we introduce additions specifying the structure of the bar and the relationship between its parts. It was also Balakirev and Kolberg that introduced changes striving in this direction. The former divided the bar in two in his copy, whereas the latter signalised the structure of the bar in EL by putting two small lines between the 2nd and 3rd beats.

The dotted rhythm on the 2nd beat of the bar is probably a mistake of the copyist – see the note in the 2nd half of the bar. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Kolberg's revisions , Balakirev's revisions

b. 35-41

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No notation on upper staff in A1, CJ & CB

Rests and added notes in CK

Added notes & rests in EL
..

The additional notes in the R.H. part present in b. 35-36 and 39-40 in CK – c2-d2, echoing an authentic ending of the melody in b. 32-33 – are most probably Kolberg's inauthentic addition, since they are absent both in A1 and CJ, based on [A2], just like CK. CB also confirms the lack of authenticity thereof – Balakirev did not see them in the copied manuscript that was either CK before the notes were added or another copy of Kolberg in which they were simply absent. These motifs, in an already elaborate form, appear in EL in b. 35-37 and – moved an octave lower – in b. 39-41. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Kolberg's revisions

b. 35-43

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

Rests in A1

Rests in CJ

Rests in CK

Rests in CB

Rests in EL

Rests suggested by the editors
..

These 9 bars were written by Chopin on the bottom stave only both in A1 and [A2] (→CJ); CB also applied such notation. At the same time, all sources – including CK and EL, in which a few/several dozen notes and rests were added on the top stave – convey the general idea of division into hands expressed through the direction of the stems and arrangement of the rests. In turn, as far as the details are concerned, there are many differences between them, which, however, are of no practical meaning; some of them are simply mistakes or simplifications related to the notation of repeated figures. Due to this reason, we do not discuss them in detail, leaving a possible analysis to the reader. The version suggested in the main text is based on CJ; we only complement the notation of b. 37-38, in which some of the L.H. rests were overlooked.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in JC , Kolberg's revisions

b. 35-36

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No indication in A1 & EL

dimin. in bar 35 in CJ

dim. in bar 36 in CK

dimin. in bar 36 in CB
..

In the main text we stick to the notation of CJ, since Kolberg could have moved the indication dim. so that it does not contradict the continuation of the  dynamics, valid half a bar ago. Such a literal interpretation of these indications would also explain the omission of dim. in EL.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Kolberg's revisions , Revisions in EL