mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 291-292

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Staccato dot & slur in A

2 wedges in GE (→FE,EE)

Wedge in FESB
..

The version of the editions most probably resulted from revision and a mistake by the engraver of GE1 – after putting legato and the R.H. slur between the staves, there was no space left for the  hairpin and the L.H. slur. He placed the hairpin under the stave and most probably forgot about the slur, which, moreover, was quite inconspicuous in A. In this situation, it is difficult to consider the additional wedge authentic.
FESB overlooked the first wedge.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 297-298

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Slur from e3 & 2 wedges in AsI

Slur to f3 & wedge f3 in A

Slur to e3 & 2 wedges in GE (→FE,FESB)

Slur to e3 & wedge f3 in EE
..

The ending of the slur of A reaching f3 was most probably added later, replacing the previous markings, analogous to the two preceding figures (staccato dot and slur to the last semiquaver in bar 297). It is unclear why this distinct notation was not reproduced by GE (→FE,EE). Perhaps it was influenced by the layout, in which bar 298 opens a new line. Chopin's intervention seems highly unlikely here.
The absence of the wedge in EE is most probably an oversight.
The unclear entry in AsI may be a superimposition of two versions – an earlier one with two wedges (which, apart from a different kind of staccato mark, corresponds to the original A version) and a later one in which e3-f3 are slurred which corresponds to the ultimate A version.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , GE revisions

b. 297

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Wedges in AsI & GE (→FE,EE)

Staccato dots in A
..

In the main text, we provide staccato dots inscribed in A. The wedges pencilled into #ApI are the first attempt at articulation marks here. On the other hand, the version of the editions must be the aftermath of the unjustified conviction of the engraver of GE1 that all staccato marks in the finale of the Variations are wedges.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Wedges

b. 298-300

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

In R.H. figurations Chopin considers accidentals to be valid also in adjacent octaves. Therefore, in A there are no flats to the 9th, 12th and 15th semiquavers in bar 298 (a2, d3, g3), the 14th semiquaver in bar 299 (d3) and the 2nd and 18th semiquavers in bar 300 (d1, c1). All necessary flats were added already in GE (→FE,EE).
There are more accidentals in #ApI than in A, both necessary (3rd, 4th and 6th among those mentioned above, with the omitted flats to d2 in bar 299 and to a1 in bar 300), and unnecessarily repeated ones (flats to g2 at the end of bar 298 and to c2 on the 3rd beat of bar 300, and also a  to a2 in bar 299), as well as a cautionary  to a1 in bar 299).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

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