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

Verbal indications

b. 59

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No indication in A1

delicato in CJ, CK (→CB) and EL
..

In the main text we give the delicato indication according to [A2] (→CJ,CK→CB) and EL. In both copies based on [A2] the indication begins approximately under the 3rd small quaver, which is a characteristic inaccuracy – cf. b. 57. In the substantive transcription (the version "redaction") of both copies we place the indication at the beginning of the 2nd half of the bar, in accordance with the contemporary editorial practices.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Centrally placed marks

b. 60

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

rall. in A1

delicatiss. & rallent. in CJ i CK

delicatissimo in CB

delicatiss. & rallent. in EL
..

Just like in the previous bar, in the main text we include delicatiss. present in the sources coming from [A2] – CJ, CK (→CB) and EL. In the earlier copies – CJ and CK – the indication is placed centrally under the R.H. run. The omission of rallent. in CB is Balakirev's revision, who replaced three authentic indications in b. 60-63 with one in b. 62-64. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Centrally placed marks , Balakirev's revisions

b. 61-64

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

dim.  dim. in A1

 e rall. in CJ

 rall. in CK

rallen - tan - do in CB

rall. in EL
..

The dynamic and agogic indications of the final four-bar section clearly differ in the particular sources. However, only two basic versions are authentic – A1 and CJ and CK (the differences between both copies based on [A2] concern insignificant details only). The close resemblance of the version of CB to the one of EL is puzzling – according to us, however, the coincidence does not point to a common source, which is contradicted by other numerous differences between these sources, but to a similar way of thinking of Balakirev and the reviser of EL, who strived for simplified notation.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Balakirev's revisions , Revisions in EL