mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FESB

b. 11

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

In FE and FESB the wedges over the L.H. sixth were omitted. These are probably errors.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FESB

b. 107-108

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Slurs in A, contextual interpretation

Slurs in GE (→FE,EE)

Slurs in FESB
..

At the end of b. 107, it is uncertain which R.H. voices the slurs of A concern – practically, each combination of two out of three voices is possible. On the basis of a comparison with analogous b. 123, we assume that they concern the two bottom voices. This is how it was interpreted, more or less, in GE (→FE,EE), in which, however, the top slur begins only just over the last semiquaver, while the bottom one reaches d1 and not b1 at the beginning of b. 108. The notation was further distorted in FESB.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FESB

b. 262

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

on 4th beat in A & FESB

on 3rd beat in GE (→FE1,EE)
..

According to us, the placement of the  indication is an example of Chopin using here a convention of writing indications within and not at the beginning of the scope of their validity. Due to the above, in the main text we give preference to the version of GE (→FE1,EE). The version of FESB resulted from the engraver's inaccuracy, and its compliance with A must be accidental, since throughout the entire piece, no features of FESB suggest that this publisher could have had an insight into A. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Centrally placed marks , Inaccuracies in FESB

b. 335-336

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

The slurs of AsI are written offhandedly; they signal an intent rather than represent actual marks. This intent were most probably slurs encompassing the entire passage, including the 1st quaver in bar 336.
In A both slurs – both in the R.H. and the L.H. – indicate that the slurs from bar 335 (at the end of a line) should be continued, which is, however, not confirmed by bar 336, which does not contain their endings. In this case, there are no doubts that the slurs are supposed to reach the end of the passage, and this is how it was interpreted in GE (→FE,EE). In FESB the L.H. slur erroneously reaches only the end of bar 335.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation , Inaccuracies in FESB