mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors repeated in GE

b. 58

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Spelling in sources

Spelling suggested by the editors
..

The authentic chromatic notation of the descending part of the roulade takes into account the validity of the previously entered accidentals only to a minimal extent:

  • In a few places Chopin chose enharmonic variants requiring a greater number of accidentals than necessary – c4 as the 15th note, b3 (18th), g3 (25th), f3 (29th), e3 (33rd), c3 (39th), b2 (43rd). As in such a chromatic sequence enharmonic variants of notation practically do not impact the understanding of music, we exceptionally change this orthography in the main text to avoid excessive complications. It allows us to reduce the number of accidentals on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th beats of the bar by 8 (in the authentic notation we also count the 3 accidentals overlooked by Chopin – see below).
  • Assuming a regular structure of the figuration – which is almost impossible to challenge – Chopin overlooked a  cancelling an alteration that has occurred earlier in the bar three times – no naturals to c4 (14th note), a3 (20th note) and f3 (31st note).
  • The  to g3 was unnecessarily repeated (22nd note).

This notation was repeated without any changes by the majority of the editions. Only in FESB a  restoring c4 was added (14th note).

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

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , FE revisions , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 59-61

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 69

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

Chopin erroneously wrote the syncopated c2 note on the 2nd quaver in the bar as a double dotted crotchet. The mistake was only noticed by FESB, which tried to amend it by replacing the dots with a semiquaver, connected to the crotchet by a tie (in this place there is actually no tie, but this must have been the reviser's intention, which is proven by the ties in analogous situations in b. 77 and 89). Rhythmically speaking, the notation is correct; however, it is unclear due to the arrangement of the notes – the added semiquaver was placed not over the last quaver in the bottom voice, but right next to the crotchet. In the main text we suggest the same rhythmic values yet correctly arranged and beamed. Chopin used a similar notation in the Prelude in C minor, Op. 45, b. 7, 11 and analog.
Similar situations are to be found in b. 77 and 89. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Rhythmic errors , Errors of A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 70

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

The flat restoring e1 is only in AsI, which means that neither Chopin nor the revisers of the editions noticed this obvious mistake.

category imprint: Interpretations within context

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors of A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 77

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Crotchet & quaver g2 in AsI

Extended crotchet & semiquaver in remaining sources
..

As was the case with b. 69, in the majority of the sources (except FESB) the syncopated g2 crotchet is prolonged with two dots, which leads to an excess of rhythmic values – 5 quavers in the bar. The mistake was noticed and corrected (awkwardly in terms of graphics) only in FESB.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Rhythmic errors , Errors of A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE