mUltimate Chopin

WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 1-4

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

2  in A1

No signs in CJ, CK (→CB) & EL
..

The short  marks suggest emphasising the dissonant chord. The former, reaching slightly further into b. 2, could be even interpreted as a reversed long accent. According to us, just like in the case of other complementary indications, these marks may be used in the version of the main text too.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 6-7

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No sign in A1 & EL

in CJ

in CK

in CB

 suggested by the editors
..

A1 is devoid of dynamic hairpins and accents in b. 5-18, which is a result of the working nature of this autograph. To the main text we adopt a mark that was an attempt to reconstruct [A2] on the basis of its two representations in CJ and CK. However, the interpretation of both is subject to some uncertainty due to the use of abridged notation of the L.H. part and in CJ also due to the lack of synchronisation in the notation of the parts of both hands. Consequently, the versions of both copies, and even the interpretation of CK given in CB, may be considered a potentially accurate interpretation of Chopin's intention. The absence of the mark in EL is probably a mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Balakirev's revisions

b. 8

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No sign in A1, CK (→CB) & EL

 in CJ, literal reading

Long accent in CJ, possible interpretation

Our variant suggestion
..

It is difficult to interpret the mark in CJ – it has uneven arms, as a result of which it is uncertain when it should begin, while its ending falls within the 2nd half of the bar, written using abridged notation, which hampers the estimation of its range. Moreover, the absence of the mark in the remaining sources, and particularly in CK, which is based on the same source, suggests that it could have been entered by mistake – the first halves of b. 8-9 are graphically very similar, which could have confused the copyist. According to us, assuming that the mark was present in [A2], we consider a long accent to be the most likely interpretation. Due to the described doubts, in the main text we give this accent in a variant form. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in JC

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. 23-24

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No signs in A1

  in CJ & CK

  in CB

  in EL
..

The manuscripts conveying the text of [A2] are pretty united on the range of the dynamic hairpins in these bars (A1 is devoid of such marks). The whole-bar marks of EL are an arbitrary decision of Kolberg or the engraver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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