mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 62

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

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

Crotchets and minims together in EE

Various rhythms in FE
..

As in the previous bars, the engraver (reviser?) of EE changed the arrangement of the L.H. notes, as a result of which it seems that the dotted a and b crotchets are to be played together with the f minims. The beginning of this bar is also one of the places in which this erroneous notation was also introduced by FE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 63

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Only staccato in AsI

staccato ma leggier. in A (→GE→FESB)

staccato leggiero in FE

staccato ma leggiero in EE
..

In the main text, we keep the extended performance indication as provided in A (→GE→FESB). In the remaining editions, the Chopinesque leggier. abbreviation, not entirely clear, was replaced with leggiero, the meaning of which (but not the form) most probably corresponds to the indication intended by Chopin – see the note to b. 14. At the same time, in EE there are more abbreviations, while in FE1 (→FE2) the word 'ma' was omitted; those changes almost certainly resulted from revision or the engraver's inaccuracies.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , FE revisions , 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. 265

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

in A

in GE1 (→GE2)

 in FE1, EE & GE3

in FESB
..

The  hairpin is written in A between the staves and begins after the 1st R.H. chord (in Af the bottom arm starts as early as at the beginning of the bar). In GE (→FE,EE) the mark was moved to over the R.H. part, which, in this case, does not significantly influence its meaning. The change was most probably forced by lack of space between the staves; it cannot come from Chopin. The slight change of range in GE1 (→GE2) – the beginning of the mark was moved slightly to the right – was intensified by all subsequent editions, while FESB additionally reversed the direction of the mark, which is a frequent mistake in the first editions of Chopin's pieces. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Placement of markings , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Sign reversal

b. 282-283

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

con o in 8va from b. 283 in A & FESB

con o in 8va from b. 282 in GE

8va from b. 283 in FE1 (→FE2)

con 8ves from b. 282 in EE, contextual interpretation
..

According to us, the only aim of the version introduced by Chopin into FE1 (→FE2) could have been to specify the notation of GE1, in which the indication begins a quaver too early, while in bar 287 it does not signal the transition to the simple octave sign, resulting from the change of texture to chordal. In other words, it is uncertain whether FE1 (→FE2) omitting the possibility to perform bars 283-286 and the two beats of bar 287 in octaves was not simply a compromise to avoid unnecessary complications of proofreading. Due to the above, in the main text we keep the variant notation of A and FESB. In EE the form of the indication is wrong: con 8ves in 8va; when interpreted literally, it would indicate that the phrase is to be performed both in octaves and an octave higher. In the content transcription (version "edited text") we omit the second, misleading part of the indication.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of FE