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
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 302

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

 after  in A

Long accent under f in GE (→FE1→FE2)

Short accent in EE & FESB
..

The short  mark may be considered an accent associated with the initial  or as a diminuendo hairpin, which, in this context, practically does not influence the meaning of this mark. On the other hand, placing it under the 1st f semiquaver, as it was performed in GE (→FE,EE), must be contrary to the notation of A and Chopin's intention. The differences in the length of the mark in individual editions most probably correspond to the different interpretations of the engravers: the ones who considered it an accent, inserted a short accent (EE and FESB), while diminuendo took the form of a long accent, which is present in GE (→FE1→FE2).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies

b. 305

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Wedges & accents in AsI

5 wedges in A

10 wedges in GE (→FE,EE)
..

In the main text we keep the undoubtedly authentic and intentional notation of A, in which it is only the bass notes that are provided with staccato marks. The authenticity of the decision to provide all semiquavers with such marks is uncertain – according to us, it could have resulted from the engraver of GE1 impulsively considering the notation of A to be incomplete. The fact that Chopin wanted the bass notes to be performed differently than the chords is confirmed by the initial version of AsI.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 310

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

3 staccato dots

3 wedges in GE1 (→EE,FE1→FE2, →GE2→FESB)

6 wedges in GE3
..

The wedges in the editions resulted from the engraver of GE1 having misinterpreted the authentic dots. In GE3 wedges were arbitrarily added over the chords too (cf. bar 305).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Wedges

b. 310

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

in A

in GE1 (→GE2,EE,FE1→FE2)

in FESB

No sign in GE3
..

The differences in the range of the  hairpin resulted from routine revisions, adjusting the marks to rhythmic structures or beams – in GE1 (→GE2,EE,FE) on the left-hand side, while in FESB also on the right-hand side. The absence of the mark in GE3 is an oversight by the engraver. In the main text we reproduce the mark of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in GE , GE revisions , FE revisions

b. 311

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No marks in AsI & A

Wedges in GE (→FE,EE)
..

The wedges, added to the bass crotchets in GE1 certainly by mistake, were strangely consistently repeated by all the remaining editions. The source of the mistake could be the first crotchet stem, to f, which in A does not reach the notehead and therefore could have been considered a wedge.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE