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. 282-283

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

con o in 8va from b. 283 in A & FESB

con o in 8va from b. 282 in GE

8va from b. 283 in FE1 (→FE2)

con 8ves from b. 282 in EE, contextual interpretation
..

According to us, the only aim of the version introduced by Chopin into FE1 (→FE2) could have been to specify the notation of GE1, in which the indication begins a quaver too early, while in bar 287 it does not signal the transition to the simple octave sign, resulting from the change of texture to chordal. In other words, it is uncertain whether FE1 (→FE2) omitting the possibility to perform bars 283-286 and the two beats of bar 287 in octaves was not simply a compromise to avoid unnecessary complications of proofreading. Due to the above, in the main text we keep the variant notation of A and FESB. In EE the form of the indication is wrong: con 8ves in 8va; when interpreted literally, it would indicate that the phrase is to be performed both in octaves and an octave higher. In the content transcription (version "edited text") we omit the second, misleading part of the indication.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 282

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

c2 in AsI & A (→GE→EE,FESB)

a1 in FE
..

In the main text we give the version of FE, which most probably resulted from Chopin's proofreading. However, taking into account the possibility that the note was shifted by a third (by mistake), which is one of the most frequent errors in rewriting and copying notes, we consider the version of the remaining sources (undoubtedly authentic) an equal variant.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 282

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No  in sources

[] suggested by the editors
..

We consider the omission of the  mark in this bar by Chopin an oversight, and in the main text we suggest a  in a harmonically natural place.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: No pedal release mark

b. 283

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

 on b2 in AsI & FE1 (→FE2)

No ornament in A (→GE→FESB,EE1→EE2)

 on a2 in EE3
..

In the main text we include the  added by Chopin in FE, hence in the last formation stage of the text of the Variations. Its presence also in the earliest of the preserved sources, AsI, suggests that Chopin hesitated; however, it is likely that the composer simply overlooked the mark in A. Probably on the basis of a comparison with FE2, the ornament was also added in EE3; however, it was placed inaccurately, as a result of which it seems to concern the 2nd semiquaver on the 2nd beat, a2, which is a mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , Chopin's hesitations , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 283

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Slur from g2 in A

Slur from f2 in GE (→FE,EE)
..

The slight change of range of the slur in GE (→FE,EE) could be considered an inaccuracy. According to us, a routine revision is, however, more likely, adjusting the range of the slur to beams or regular rhythmic structures, e.g. bars. In this case, the slur starts from the beginning of the bar, hence earlier than in A; by contrast, in bars 284-285 – also from the beginning of the bar, but later than in A. In the main text we give the slur of A, starting from the semiquaver, as in the analogous phrases in bars 275, 279 and 287.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions