mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 28-29

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

in A

in GE (→FESB)

Long accent in FE

Accent in EE
..

Due to the seemingly insignificant shifts of the  hairpin, first in GE and then in FE and EE, in FE and EE the mark became an accent on c4, separate or associated with . Such a version differs quite significantly from the notation of A, in which the mark concerns rather the b3-g3 motif.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies

b. 30-32

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Crotchets after minims in AsI & A (→GE→FESB)

Various rhythms in FE

Crotchets and minims together in EE
..

As before, FE, and particularly EE, distorted the notation of the accompaniment by placing some (FE) or all (EE) dotted crotchets directly next to the minims, which suggests that they should be performed simultaneously.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 50

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Various accents in A

Long accents in GE1 (→GE2,FE)

Short accents in FESB

Vertical accents in EE

No marks in GE3
..

We reproduce the notation of A, in which the length of the accents regularly decreases, which may suggest, e.g. that they should be each time milder, considering the calando. Such a graphical notation is to be found in a more complex form in the Polonaise in F minor, WN 12, in the autograph of which we can see in b. 79 a sequence of 6 notes marked diminuendo, provided with increasingly shorter accents. In the case of three accents only, it is, however, uncertain whether Chopin indeed wanted to suggest the pianist a certain performance idea; therefore, in the main text we interpret these marks in a standard manner, as long accents (written down inaccurately). This is how they were reproduced by GE1 (→GE2,FE1). The short accents of FESB and the vertical ones of EE are arbitrary changes, while the omission of the marks in GE3 – a mistake.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , Inaccuracies in A

b. 62

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Crotchets after minims in AsI & A (→GE→FESB)

Crotchets and minims together in EE

Various rhythms in FE
..

As in the previous bars, the engraver (reviser?) of EE changed the arrangement of the L.H. notes, as a result of which it seems that the dotted a and b crotchets are to be played together with the f minims. The beginning of this bar is also one of the places in which this erroneous notation was also introduced by FE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 63

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Only staccato in AsI

staccato ma leggier. in A (→GE→FESB)

staccato leggiero in FE

staccato ma leggiero in EE
..

In the main text, we keep the extended performance indication as provided in A (→GE→FESB). In the remaining editions, the Chopinesque leggier. abbreviation, not entirely clear, was replaced with leggiero, the meaning of which (but not the form) most probably corresponds to the indication intended by Chopin – see the note to b. 14. At the same time, in EE there are more abbreviations, while in FE1 (→FE2) the word 'ma' was omitted; those changes almost certainly resulted from revision or the engraver's inaccuracies.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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