mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Corrections in A

b. 208-227

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

After Variation III, in A there is an earlier version of Variation IV, based on a different textural idea:

After having written down the entire piece, Chopin deleted this variation (without its final tutti) and added its new, final version at the end of the manuscript; moreover, he precisely marked the places in which the added text should be inserted. AsI retains the version deleted in A in an even earlier form, in which certain fragments were being developed a few times.
Taking into account the below:

  • the different texture of both versions excludes any possibility of exchange of their individual fragments,
  • the change entered into A, described above, is final,

we discuss separately the version abandoned by Chopin – see Variation IV, initial version. It is also there that the transcriptions – graphic and content – of the notation of AsI can be found.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A

b. 228-239

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

The initial edit of the solo part of this variation, the only one written down in AsI and crossed out in A, is discussed separately as Variation IV, initial version.  

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A

b. 297-298

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Slur from e3 & 2 wedges in AsI

Slur to f3 & wedge f3 in A

Slur to e3 & 2 wedges in GE (→FE,FESB)

Slur to e3 & wedge f3 in EE
..

The ending of the slur of A reaching f3 was most probably added later, replacing the previous markings, analogous to the two preceding figures (staccato dot and slur to the last semiquaver in bar 297). It is unclear why this distinct notation was not reproduced by GE (→FE,EE). Perhaps it was influenced by the layout, in which bar 298 opens a new line. Chopin's intervention seems highly unlikely here.
The absence of the wedge in EE is most probably an oversight.
The unclear entry in AsI may be a superimposition of two versions – an earlier one with two wedges (which, apart from a different kind of staccato mark, corresponds to the original A version) and a later one in which e3-f3 are slurred which corresponds to the ultimate A version.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , GE revisions

b. 308-309

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

The corrections and erasures visible in A reveal that Chopin initially wrote a slur only over the semiquaver sextuplet. Similar changes of conventional slurs related to the notation of irregular groups into motivic slurs are also to be found in other pieces by Chopin, e.g. in the Etude in C minor, Op. 10 No. 12, bars 52-62.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Triplet slurs

b. 338

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Notation in A

Notation in GE (→FE,EE)
..

In A the division of the L.H. part into voices is irregular and at times difficult to implement in print. It seems to have resulted from introducing changes (not entirely thought out) to the notation of the first two quavers – Chopin probably started from one-part notation , out of which he then separated the two top voices on the 1st beat. In this situation, the simpler version of GE (→FE,EE) is to be considered an improvement, although it is uncertain whether it comes from Chopin. Anyways, the composer did not question it while correcting the last quaver in FE – see the next note.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Corrections in A , GE revisions