mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic corrections of GE

b. 186

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No fingering in AsI & A (→GE1→FE,EE)
..

In this place, the fingering added by GE2 (→GE3,FESB) is compliant with Chopin's preference – cf., e.g. the fingering of the repeated notes entered into the pupils' copies of the Waltz in E, Op. 18, b. 21-25. Therefore, it could be coming from him; however, for the reasons discussed in the characterisation of GE2, we do not give it in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 194-195

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Slur in GE (→FE,EE), contextual interpretation

Slur after GE (→FE,EE), contextual interpretation
..

The slur between these bars was added in GE1, possibly by Chopin. However, the notation is inaccurate, as only the ending of the slur in bar 195, on a new line, is printed. According to the editors, a mistaken placement of this slur cannot be ruled out, especially since there is no slur in this place in a similar phrase in bars 178-179. On the other hand, the vast majority (8 out of 11) of figures in which a demisemiquaver after a rest precedes a note of a different pitch are covered by a two-note slur. In addition, 2 out of 3 situations in which there is no slur are problematic – the slur in bars 180-181 has almost certainly been missed (in the analogous bars 192-193 the appropriate slur is present), and in bar 194 the demisemiquaver b1 leads in the melody to c2, but b1 is repeated in the lower voice. Taking into account this statistic and the possibility of Chopin's correction, we include the slur in question in the main text.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Authentic corrections of GE , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 208-211

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

4 staccato dots in A

32 wedges in GE (→FE,EE)

32 wedges & dots suggested by the editors
..

The addition of markings to the L.H. part seems justified and could be coming from Chopin as such. According to us, however, it does not mean that the dots entered into A should be changed to wedges – the markings added in a proof copy (perhaps by Chopin) were either misinterpreted or the person who added them (perhaps Chopin) used wedges to match the already printed wedges. Therefore, in the main text we include the added markings; however, we keep the differences between them modelled after the authentic markings in the R.H. part and in a certain sense confirmed by the L.H. dots in A in bar 208.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , Wedges

b. 240

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No indication in AsI

marcato from 1st quaver in A

marcato after first quaver in GE (→FE,EE,FESB)
..

The change in the placement of the marcato indication, introduced by GE1 and the remaining editions, does not seem to be accidental; however, its authenticity remains uncertain. Therefore, in the main text we give the version of A, considering the notation of GE (→FE,EE,FESB) an equal variant.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 256

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

e notes in A, literal reading

E notes in AsI & A (contextual interpretation→GE→FE,EE)
..

In the entire passage Chopin did not insert any accidentals except the naturals to the 1st and 3rd notes (e and a). The necessity to raise subsequent a to a is beyond dispute; however, the use of e1, e2 and e3 would be harmonically and pianistically possible. Nevertheless, the majority of the arguments support the use of e1, e2 and e3:

  • in figurations based on repeating a certain figure in various octaves (most often arpeggios or scales), Chopin considered the accidentals put in the first figure to be valid in the entire sequence. He would mark possible exceptions with cautionary accidentals, e.g. the flats to b2 in bars 60 and 62. If he had heard e1 in the discussed passage, most probably he would have provided it with a ;
  • the above reasoning is partially confirmed by AsI, which has a  before the penultimate note of beat 1 (e3);
  • the harmonic context is based on an F major chord (without e seventh), which is confirmed both by the orchestral part and the piano chords (on the 3rd quaver and at the end of the bar). The e notes in the arpeggio would be regarded chord tones, giving an impression of a dominant seventh chord (F7). By contrast, we hear the altered e notes as non-chord tones, which contributes to the impression that the F major chord is regarded as the harmonic basis;
  • the naturals raising e1 to e1 and e2 to e2 were added in GE (→FE,EE) (the latter also influences e3; a third  was added only by GE3), even if inserted by the reviser, were not questioned by Chopin in the stage of proofreading FE1.

As far as the missing naturals to a1 and a2 are concerned, in GE1 (→FE1,GE2→FESB) it was only the one to a2 that was added, which was supplemented by EE and GE3.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , Inaccuracies in A