mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors resulting from corrections

b. 207

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

4 wedges on 2nd & 3rd quaver in A

4 wedges on 2nd & 3rd quaver after A

4 wedges after A & FE

5 wedges in GE (→EE)

5 wedges after GE (→EE)

5 wedges after GE (→EE)

Wedge on 2nd R.H. quaver and 3 L.H. wedges in FE

Wedge on 2nd R.H. quaver and 3 L.H. wedges after FE

2 L.H. wedges in FESB

2 L.H. wedges after FESB
..

The additional wedge in GE is, according to the editors, most likely a mistake by the engraver of GE1 – there is no reason why Chopin's possible addition of marks should only apply to the L.H. In turn, omission of the last R.H. wedge in FE is probably a side effect of the correction of the pitch of this quaver – see the adjacent note. The absence of 3 out of 5 wedges in FESB is most likely the result of the carelessness of the engraver of this edition. In the main text we provide wedges according to A, taking into account Chopin's correction of the last quaver introduced in FE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 319

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

5 wedges in AsI & A

6 wedges in GE (→EE,FESB)

No marks in FE
..

Chopin marked with wedges 5 thirds, since the last two are connected by a slur. Therefore, the sixth wedge in GE (→EE,FESB) must be a mistake. In FE all these marks were omitted, which was most probably a side effect of the intervention in the size of notes – see the next note.

As far as the notation of AsI is concerned, it is inaccurate, while the compliance in terms of the number of wedges with the version of A is most probably accidental – Chopin scribbled a few dashes (marking wedges) with the intention of marking all 6 semiquavers in this way and did not bother to check their number in the working manuscript (in the R.H. he put as many as 7 dashes!).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections , Errors in GE

b. 320

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Accent in AsI

Accent & wedges in A (→GE→EE)

No marks in FE & FESB
..

The left-out accent and wedges must be a mistake by FE and FESB. In the case of FE1 (→FE2), according to us, the possible reason could be – as in the previous bar – the introduction of the ossia più facile version, marked by the use of a smaller font (see the note in bar 319).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections

b. 320

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Slur in A (→GE→EE,FESB)

No slur in FE
..

The missing slur in FE must be a mistake, as in the case of the accent and wedges – see the previous note.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections

b. 325

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

d3 in AsI

e3 in A (→GE→FE,EE), literal reading

e3 suggested by the editors
..

The pitch of the 2nd semiquaver in the 5th triplet is questionable – when interpreted literally, it is an e3; however, in all analogous places a respective note is placed a fifth (perfect) lower than the previous one, in this case e3, which suggests Chopin's possible mistake. In uneven triplets, the 2nd and 3rd semiquavers melodically combine with the next triplet, which Chopin carefully marked with R.H. slurs; however, this does not determine their harmonic affiliation. The latter is determined by the L.H. sequence (with different slurs!), consisting of D-T sequences filling two subsequent quavers, which, in turn, is clearly signalled by the bass voice beams. If we also take into account Chopin's tendency to forget about previous alterations (in this case it is really far – this is the only bar within bars 321-329 in which the 1st semiquaver is altered), an accidental oversight of a  restoring e3 seems very likely. Therefore, the absence of a  to the unquestionable e3 in the next triplet belongs to Chopin's typical inaccuracies – it is a note belonging to the current chord (A major) and was marked a semiquaver earlier in the L.H. part. Taking into consideration the above, in the main text we suggest adding accidentals so that the discussed fragment of the progression does not deviate from the binding scheme.

In AsI the 5th triplet in the bar is presented in the initial form (see also bar 328), in which the problematic note is absent. The introduction of a change in this place is an argument for Chopin's mistake in A, since corrections narrow down the attention field, which is conducive to errors.

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

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors resulting from corrections , Errors of A , Main-line changes