mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in GE

b. 23

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

in A

in GE (→FE,EE)

in FESB
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Revisions in FESB

b. 25-28

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

4 different slurs in AsI

4 longer & 3 shorter slurs in A, literal reading

7 longer slurs in A, contextual interpretation

6 shorter slurs in GE1 (→GE2)

7 shorter slurs in FE, EE 7 GE3
..

The range of the small slurs under the groups of grace notes differs in A; however, they must be accidental inaccuracies, getting bigger as similar marks repeat themselves. The first 4 slurs prove that Chopin almost certainly meant slurs reaching the respective main notes, and this is the interpretation we adopt to the main text. In the editions, the slurs encompassed only the grace notes; moreover, GE1 (→GE2) overlooked the second slur in b. 26 (which was added in the remaining editions).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , FE 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

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Slur to c4 in A & EE

Slur to c4 in A & EE

Slur to a3 in AsI & GE (→FE,FESB)

Slur to a3 in AsI & GE (→FE,FESB)
..

The ending of the slur in GE1 (→GE2) is situated in such a way that it is unclear whether it is supposed to end on a3 or c4. The former was chosen by FE, FESB and GE3, whereas the latter – by EE. In #ApI, the slur is most likely part of the designation of an irregular group (written in small notes – see previous note). In the main text we give the unequivocal slur of A, which reaches c4.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

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