mUltimate Chopin

WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors of JC

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

b. 61-62

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

e1 in bars 61-62 in A1, CK (→CB) & EL

e1 & e1 in CJ, literal reading

e1 & e1 in CJ, contextual interpretation
..

Out of the two versions coming from [A2], we give priority to CK due to its compliance with the unequivocally authentic version of A1. The sharp raising e1 to e1 in b. 61 in CJ could have been placed by mistake, e.g. due to the resemblance of the figures in b. 61-63. On the other hand, one cannot rule out that Chopin wanted to introduce a major variant of the tonic already in b. 61 – cf. the major endings of the Nocturnes in E Minor, WN 23, C Minor, Op. 27 No. 1, F Minor, Op. 48 No. 2 or F Minor, Op. 55 No. 2, consisting of a few or several dozen bars. 

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

issues: Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of JC , Inaccuracies in JC , Errors in CK