mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE revisions

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. 30-32

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Crotchets after minims in AsI & A (→GE→FESB)

Various rhythms in FE

Crotchets and minims together in EE1

Notation with rests in EE2 (→EE3)
..

As before, FE, and particularly EE1, distorted the notation of the accompaniment by placing some (FE) or all (EE1) dotted crotchets directly next to the minims, which suggests that they should be performed simultaneously. In EE2 (→EE3), the misleading notation of EE1 has been partially corrected.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE

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. 40-41

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No markings in A (→GE→FE), contextual interpretation

    in EE
..

In addition to the  mark at the end of b. 39, A (→GE→FE,EE) includes the same mark also before the 1st chord in b. 41. A more detailed analysis of A reveals that in the middle of b. 40 there were initially  marks, eventually erased and most probably replaced with the first  mark. Therefore, it seems that Chopin initially wrote two pedals in b. 39-40, one from the 2nd beat of b. 39 to the middle of b. 40 and another encompassing the 2nd half of b. 41 (to the preserved  mark) before shortening the first pedal and removing the second, inadvertently leaving the asterisk at the beginning of b. 41. EE added the allegedly overlooked  mark yet without taking into account the change of chord in the middle of the bar; this pedalling cannot come from Chopin.

category imprint: Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , Errors of A