mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 23

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

staccato & dots in AsI

Wedges in A (→GE→FE,EE,FESB)
..

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 25

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Short accents in A (probable interpretation→GE)

Long accents in A, possible interpretation 

No marks in FE

Vertical accents in EE
..

The accents in A are shorter than the ones over the bass notes in this bar, but the difference is so insignificant that it is uncertain which marks Chopin meant here. The absence of marks in both impressions of FE is either an oversight or a revision – the latter seems more likely, especially in the case of FESB, which was based on GE2, during the final period of its presence on the market, hence when the plates must have already been as worn out as evidenced by the copy presented in our system. Upon seeing the very clear outlines of the removed elements, they could have assumed that the accents over d1 were the remaining elements of the initial, misplaced marks and that it is only the accents over the bass notes that should stay. Anyways, a possible change introduced by Chopin while proofreading FE1 seems less likely than one of the above possibilities. 
The change of the accents over d1 to vertical ones was a typical arbitrary decision of EE.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in FE

b. 25-27

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Long accents in A (→GE→FE)

Vertical accents in EE
..

The length of the five accents over each subsequent bass note differs in A – they get shorter with each note; however, it is an inaccuracy of notation, since it is only the last accent that could be considered short (but in a different context). In GE1 (→GE2,FE) the accents are not homogeneous either, but it is most probably also due to graphical reasons – the shortest accent, over e, was squeezed in between the notes of the top voice and could not have been longer. The accents in GE3 are also long, while the ones in FESB could be considered long. By contrast, in EE the horizontal accents were replaced with vertical ones, which was a frequent arbitrary decision in Wessel's publications; a similar change was performed, e.g. in this entire line, see the adjacent note and bar 27.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions

b. 27

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

 in A, probable interpretation

Long accent for L.H. e1 in GE1 (→GE2,FESB)

Short accent on a in FE1

Vertical accent on e1 in EE

Long accent on F in GE3
..

It was first the engraver of GE and then the engravers of the subsequent editions who had problems interpreting the  mark visible in A. According to us, it is a diminuendo hairpin following , as in b. 20, 24 or 28; in addition, the mark rather applies to the R.H. In GE1 (→GE2→FESB) the mark was placed next to the stem of the L.H. e1 crotchet, which could be interpreted as a long accent concerning that note, which, graphically speaking, can be considered a possible interpretation of the notation of A. It was also EE that interpreted the mark in GE1 as an accent over e1, yet its form was changed to a vertical accent (as was the case with the previous accents in b. 25-27). By contrast, in FE the mark of GE1 was moved even lower, which resulted in an accent over the a quaver. The most far-reaching revision was performed in GE3, in which the accent was moved over the bass F minim, considering it a continuation of the sequence of the bass note accents. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 28-29

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

in A

in GE (→FESB)

Long accent in FE

Accent in EE
..

Due to the seemingly insignificant shifts of the  hairpin, first in GE and then in FE and EE, in FE and EE the mark became an accent on c4, separate or associated with . Such a version differs quite significantly from the notation of A, in which the mark concerns rather the b3-g3 motif.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies