mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic corrections of FE

b. 20

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

c in A, FE & GE2 (→GE3,FESB)

e in GE1 (→EE)
..

The version of GE1 (→EE) must be a Terzverschreibung, corrected in GE2 (→GE3,FESB) and in FE1, probably by Chopin.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 25

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

e in A, FE, FESB & GE3

e in GE1 (→GE2,EE)
..

The version of GE1 (→GE2,EE), featuring e, is almost certainly erroneous – there are no traces of removal of the , despite the numerous traces of corrections visible in this and adjacent bars (very clear in GE2) related to the misinterpreted L.H.-part rhythm. The overlooked  was added by FE and FESB.
EE revised the version of GE1 by removing the  to e in the 2nd half of the bar, unnecessary due to the missing  at the beginning of the bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 25-28

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

4 longer & 3 shorter slurs in A, literal reading

7 longer slurs in A, contextual interpretation

6 shorter slurs in GE1 (→GE2)

7 shorter slurs in FE, EE 7 GE3
..

The range of the small slurs under the groups of grace notes differs in A; however, they must be accidental inaccuracies, getting bigger as similar marks repeat themselves. The first 4 slurs prove that Chopin almost certainly meant slurs reaching the respective main notes, and this is the interpretation we adopt to the main text. In the editions, the slurs encompassed only the grace notes; moreover, GE1 (→GE2) overlooked the second slur in b. 26 (which was added in the remaining editions).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , FE revisions

b. 26

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

g3 in AsI, A & FE1

f3 in GE (→EE,FESB)
..

In GE1 this note was being corrected during the printing process, which is evidenced by the visible – particularly in GE2 – traces of removal of the notehead of g3. Nevertheless, it is uncertain whether the correction was ordered by Chopin – it could have been performed by the reviser – he could have considered the notation of A a mistake. It is also likely that the initially printed g3 was devoid of a ledger line (such mistakes were quite frequent), and the reviser, without consulting the basis, considered the notehead to have been placed too high. Therefore, the authenticity of the version featuring f3 is uncertain; moreover, the fact that g3 was reintroduced into FE1 – undoubtedly by Chopin – proves that the composer eventually opted for g3, even if he were temporarily considering f3.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Chopin's hesitations , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 35

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

g3-d4 in AsI, A, FE1 & GE2 (→GE3,FESB)

g3-c4-d4 in GE1 (→EE)
..

The version of GE1 (→EE) must be erroneous – the slightly blurred ledger line in A under d4 is not a notehead. The mistake was corrected in FE1 (→FE2) and GE2 (→GE3,FESB), in the former perhaps at Chopin's request.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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