mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Long accents

b. 50

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Various accents in A

Long accents in GE1 (→GE2,FE)

Short accents in FESB

Vertical accents in EE

No marks in GE3
..

We reproduce the notation of A, in which the length of the accents regularly decreases, which may suggest, e.g. that they should be each time milder, considering the calando. Such a graphical notation is to be found in a more complex form in the Polonaise in F minor, WN 12, in the autograph of which we can see in b. 79 a sequence of 6 notes marked diminuendo, provided with increasingly shorter accents. In the case of three accents only, it is, however, uncertain whether Chopin indeed wanted to suggest the pianist a certain performance idea; therefore, in the main text we interpret these marks in a standard manner, as long accents (written down inaccurately). This is how they were reproduced by GE1 (→GE2,FE1). The short accents of FESB and the vertical ones of EE are arbitrary changes, while the omission of the marks in GE3 – a mistake.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 63

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No mark in AsI & A

Long accent in GE (→FE)

Short accent in EE & FESB
..

The long accent added by GE1 could be considered a revision or even Chopin's intervention were it not for the  marking situated in the same place. The chord provided with this dynamic indication ends a long diminuendo (running from the beginning of this extended bar); therefore, emphasising it would be contrary to Chopin's clear idea, which was to attenuate the music. We assume a possible "symmetrical reflection" mistake – the accent that was supposed to be placed under the stem of the e1 crotchet after the minim chord was printed over the stem of the F-c fifth preceding that chord. Taking into account the above, we do not give this accent in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 194

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

> in A

&  in GE (→FE,EE)

in FESB
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic 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