mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE revisions

b. 25-27

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Long accents in A (→GE→FE)

Vertical accents in EE
..

The length of the five accents over each subsequent bass note differs in A – they get shorter with each note; however, it is an inaccuracy of notation, since it is only the last accent that could be considered short (but in a different context). In GE1 (→GE2,FE) the accents are not homogeneous either, but it is most probably also due to graphical reasons – the shortest accent, over e, was squeezed in between the notes of the top voice and could not have been longer. The accents in GE3 are also long, while the ones in FESB could be considered long. By contrast, in EE the horizontal accents were replaced with vertical ones, which was a frequent arbitrary decision in Wessel's publications; a similar change was performed, e.g. in this entire line, also in b. 25 (see the adjacent note) and 27.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions

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. 39-40

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

As in b. 35-36, in A Chopin overlooked some necessary accidentals, mainly in b. 40 – a  to d2 and a  to e2 in the R.H. and a  to e1 and a  to d2 in the L.H. (the use of accidentals in b. 39 is not fully codified due to the octave sign, as a result of which the  to e3 and the  to d2 could be considered superfluous). All necessary accidentals – subject to the situation described in the brackets above – were already added in GE1 (→FE1,EE,GE2→GE3). In EE a  to d2 before the 6th semiquaver in b. 39 was also added.
FESB repeated the accidentals of GE1; however, it was a  instead of a  that was placed to the 6th semiquaver in b. 39, which resulted in an erroneous e1 note; moreover, a  to d2 was added before the 8th semiquaver in this bar, which does not make sense – the accidental, if necessary at all, should be before the 6th semiquaver.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 40-41

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No markings in A (→GE→FE), contextual interpretation

    in EE
..

In addition to the  mark at the end of b. 39, A (→GE→FE,EE) includes the same mark also before the 1st chord in b. 41. A more detailed analysis of A reveals that in the middle of b. 40 there were initially  marks, eventually erased and most probably replaced with the first  mark. Therefore, it seems that Chopin initially wrote two pedals in b. 39-40, one from the 2nd beat of b. 39 to the middle of b. 40 and another encompassing the 2nd half of b. 41 (to the preserved  mark) before shortening the first pedal and removing the second, inadvertently leaving the asterisk at the beginning of b. 41. EE added the allegedly overlooked  mark yet without taking into account the change of chord in the middle of the bar; this pedalling cannot come from Chopin.

category imprint: Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , Errors of A

b. 45-46

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Different accents in A, literal reading

Long accents in A, possible interpretation

Short accents in GE1 (→FE,GE2→FESB)

Short accent in b. 46 in GE3

Vertical accent in b. 46 in EE
..

It is uncertain whether Chopin meant the accents over the B1-B and B-b octaves to be long or short, since despite a strictly analogous situation, in A the marks differ in length. In the main text we suggest long accents, since the accent of A in b. 46 can be considered long – it is also the accent over e2 in the R.H. that is shorter than its counterpart in b. 45. The version of A, when interpreted literally, and the short accents of GE1 (→FE,GE2→FESB) can be, however, regarded as equivalent variants. In the latter version, the difference between the L.H. accents (short) and the R.H. accents (long) constitutes a detail corresponding to the difference between the length of the accentuated L.H. () and R.H. () notes as well as to the difference between the liveliness and nature of the L.H. motifs and the R.H. top voice.
The omission of the first accent in EE and GE3 could be ascribed to the engravers' inattention or their reluctance to obscure the image with a mark on the stave, between the notes. The change of the accent font in EE is a specific manner of that edition.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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