mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in A

b. 30

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

In A a few necessary or cautionary accidentals are missing – in the L.H. a  lowering g1 to g1, in the R.H. flats lowering g2 to g2 and c2 to c2 and a  to f2. In GE (→FE,EE) it was only the missing accidental in the L.H. that was added.
In the main text we add the above accidentals as well as a cautionary  to d3.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 35-36

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

Although the "nonchalant" chromatic notation of A – at least 4 accidentals in the R.H. are missing as well as 7 in the L.H. – does not lead to any textual doubts, it requires to be completed, which was already performed, to a certain extent, in the first editions. Taking into account the manner (different from ours) in the case of the R.H. part on the 4th beat of b. 35, the accidentals on the top stave were already ordered in GE1, including the addition of a cautionary  to d1 at the beginning of b. 35 and removal of the unnecessarily repeated  to b1 at the beginning of the 2nd half of b. 36. However, the notation of the L.H. part can be considered complete only in FESB and EE (different in both). In the main text we add R.H accidentals on the 4th beat of b. 35; it was also performed in GE3. See also the note at the beginning of the 2nd half of b. 36.

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

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Corrections in A , Cautionary accidentals , Inaccuracies in A

b. 39-40

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

As in b. 35-36, in A Chopin overlooked some necessary accidentals, mainly in b. 40 – a  to d2 and a  to e2 in the R.H. and a  to e1 and a  to d2 in the L.H. (the use of accidentals in b. 39 is not fully codified due to the octave sign, as a result of which the  to e3 and the  to d2 could be considered superfluous). All necessary accidentals – subject to the situation described in the brackets above – were already added in GE1 (→FE1,EE,GE2→GE3). In EE a  to d2 before the 6th semiquaver in b. 39 was also added.
FESB repeated the accidentals of GE1; however, it was a  instead of a  that was placed to the 6th semiquaver in b. 39, which resulted in an erroneous e1 note; moreover, a  to d2 was added before the 8th semiquaver in this bar, which does not make sense – the accidental, if necessary at all, should be before the 6th semiquaver.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 43-44

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

As in b. 35-36 and 39-40, in the manuscripts Chopin overlooked some of the necessary accidentals, in this case only flats. AsI lacks a  to the 14th semiquaver in b. 43 (g2) and to the 10th semiquaver in b. 44 (g), and A lacks a  to the 14th semiquaver in b. 43 (g2) and flats to the 8th and 20th semiquavers in b. 44 (g1 and g). All omitted accidentals were already added in GE1, which was repeated in the remaining editions. In the main text, we omit the unnecessary repetitions.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 45-46

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Different accents in A, literal reading

Long accents in A, possible interpretation

Short accents in GE1 (→FE,GE2→FESB)

Short accent in b. 46 in GE3

Vertical accent in b. 46 in EE
..

It is uncertain whether Chopin meant the accents over the B1-B and B-b octaves to be long or short, since despite a strictly analogous situation, in A the marks differ in length. In the main text we suggest long accents, since the accent of A in b. 46 can be considered long – it is also the accent over e2 in the R.H. that is shorter than its counterpart in b. 45. The version of A, when interpreted literally, and the short accents of GE1 (→FE,GE2→FESB) can be, however, regarded as equivalent variants. In the latter version, the difference between the L.H. accents (short) and the R.H. accents (long) constitutes a detail corresponding to the difference between the length of the accentuated L.H. () and R.H. () notes as well as to the difference between the liveliness and nature of the L.H. motifs and the R.H. top voice.
The omission of the first accent in EE and GE3 could be ascribed to the engravers' inattention or their reluctance to obscure the image with a mark on the stave, between the notes. The change of the accent font in EE is a specific manner of that edition.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , Inaccuracies in A