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. 323

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Semiquavers b3 & b2 in AsI, A & GE3

Quavers in GE1 (→FE,EE,GE2→FESB)
..

The version of the majority of the editions must be a consequence of a mistake by the engraver of GE1, who omitted here staccato marks as well. The missing semiquaver beams were added in GE3. A similar situation is to be found in bar 329.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 323

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No fingering in A (→GE1→FE,EE)

Fingering in GE2 (→GE3,FESB)
..

The fingering added in GE2 (→GE3,FESB), natural in this place, most probably, however, does not come from Chopin – see bars 55-56.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 324-325

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

As in bars 321-322, Chopin did not write in A accidentals to the last semiquaver of each beat of these bars. All necessary accidentals were already added in GE (→FE,EE).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

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

b. 327

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

In GE1 (→FE1,EE1→EE2) there are no accidentals to the fifth on the 2nd quaver in the bar, which would result in B-f. The oversight was corrected in GE2 (→GE3,FESB), FE2 and EE3.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , FE revisions , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE