mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 337

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No indication in AsI & FE

Instrumantation tip in A (→GE→EE,FESB)

Instrumantation tip in A (→GE→EE,FESB)

Instrumantation tip after A (→GE→EE,FESB)
..

In the main text we provide the indication concerning instrumentation written as a full word, as it is in A. In GE (→EE,FESB) the Fl. abbreviation was used, which we do not regard as an independent variant. The absence of the indication in FE could be attributed to the changes entered into the basis for this edition – see the adjacent note. The possibility that Chopin could have omitted this piece of information on purpose is less likely – although in the version of FE the bottom voice of the R.H. octaves does not correspond to any instrumental part, the top voice remains an equivalent of the flutes. One can even assume that this indication is all the more justified, since in this version it was the flute voice that was reinforced at the expense of the other instruments that were not included in the piano reduction.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 338

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Notation in A

Notation in GE (→FE,EE)
..

In A the division of the L.H. part into voices is irregular and at times difficult to implement in print. It seems to have resulted from introducing changes (not entirely thought out) to the notation of the first two quavers – Chopin probably started from one-part notation , out of which he then separated the two top voices on the 1st beat. In this situation, the simpler version of GE (→FE,EE) is to be considered an improvement, although it is uncertain whether it comes from Chopin. Anyways, the composer did not question it while correcting the last quaver in FE – see the next note.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Corrections in A , GE revisions

b. 338

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

b in last quaver in A (→GE→EE,FESB)

No b in FE
..

Chopin removed b while proofreading FE1 (→FE2). The removal of this note prepares a strictly four-part texture of the next two bars and ensures that the chromatic connection between the G6< major and B major chords is as legible as possible.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Accompaniment changes , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 338

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

in A

after A

No sign in AsI & GE (→FE,EE)
..

The missing  hairpin in the editions is probably an oversight by the engraver of GE1. He could have also assumed that there is too little space for this mark over the slur – cf. the previous bar, in which both marks written by Chopin between the R.H. voices were placed in the editions over the top voice.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 339

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

In A and in the majority of the editions the  restoring e2 is missing. Chopin's mistake, patent in this harmonic context, and typical of him, is proven by the  in the piano part of AsI and by the orchestral part – a respective accidental is in the part of the first clarinet. A flat was added only in GE3.

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

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors of A