mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE revisions

b. 278

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

In the main text we add cautionary accidentals: a  to f2 and a  to e1 in the L.H. The latter was also added in EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions

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. 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. 287

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

The top notes of the chords on the 2nd beat of the bar, d1-f1, are written down in A (→GE→FE,FESB) on the top stave, as a result of which they came within range of the R.H. part octave sign. If they were to be included by the octave sign, it would be impossible to perform them with the L.H., which is clearly indicated by the stems and the beam shared with the f-b fourths. The awkward notation most probably resulted from the initial version of this tutti, written down in AsI. The unequivocal version adopted to the main text was also introduced by EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 297

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No accents in AsI & FESB

Short accents in A (→GE→FE)

Vertical accents in EE
..

The lack of accents in AsI results from the working nature of this score. In FESB, they were probably overlooked.
Arbitrary changes of the font of accents are a characteristic feature of EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions