Ties over repeats

[pjones235]

In Frédéric Chopin's 2nd waltz in his 69th opus, (http://imslp.org/wiki/Waltzes,_Op.69_(C ... %C3%A9ric)), there is a tie from the first to the second note, which are both F#'s, as well as a repeat in between the two. After the first ending, are you supposed to play the second F# even though its tied to a note that isn't to be repeated?
Some versions of the song don't even have the repeat.
Sorry if this is too confusing!
Your help is appreciated.

-Philip Jones

[coulonnus]

Sorry I didn't see any repeat in the versions of the URL you point out. Which version do you mean? Scanned or typeset by whom?

[pjones235]

Well I have a book that I bought. I already knew that IMSLP's uploads were like that. The link was merely to let people know exactly what song I was talking about. I asked the question because the book I bought is transcribed differently...

[coulonnus]

Then I guess the editor of your book put a repeat at a place where all editors of imslp versions wrote the same passage again, but I don't understand at which measures this is possible.

Is there the beginning of a tie on the F before the first ending in your book? Probably the typesetting package used in your book doesn't like initiating a tie which it won't end somewhere, so it omitted this "left half of a tie".

Please compare with one of the imslp versions. The Mutopia version has measure numbers to facilitate our disscussion

And what about the slur between the first F and the A sharp meas. 3? There is the same problem!

[sbeckmesser]

If one is to trust the musicology behind the "Paderewski" edition (unfortunately the most musicologically trustworthy edition now at IMSLP and lacking its critical commentary), which prints redactions of both the Fontana and "Oxford" first publications of the piece, there are no indicated repeats that involve an F#, tied or not. I recommend jettisoning altogether any version that incorporates spurious repeats.

I recommend using instead the IMSLP version of the Oxford first printing:
http://216.129.110.22/files/imglnks/usi ... _print.pdf
.

--Sixtus

[pjones235]

Well, that is the same version I'm talking about!

[sbeckmesser]

The only tie over a repeat in the "Oxford" edition is the upbeat to the very first bar. It is obvious by how it is notated that on the repeat that you simply go from the D in the first ending to the F# 8th note in the first bar. You lose the syncopation effect but it is reestablished quickly. You DO NOT go back to the very beginning quarter-note F#. That's why the repeat sign is under the tie. The notation would be different if a repeat to the very beginning had been intended. I hope this answers your question.

--Sixtus

for reference:



http://216.129.110.22/files/imglnks/usi ... _print.pdf

PS: When you get to the end of the Trio section, you DO go back to the very beginning quarter-note F#. The last bar of the Trio is metrically incomplete (containing 2 out of 3 beats). The last beat of that bar is therefore neatly filled in by the first note of the piece. Besides, the instruction at the end of the trio is da capo (D.C.) which means go back to the very beginning.

[pjones235]

Sounds good... will give it a try.
Thanks!