mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in GE

b. 28

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

leggieriss. in A

leggier. in GE (→FE)

leggiero in EE

leggierissimo suggested by the editors
..

It is difficult to say whether the change of indication introduced by GE (→FE,EE) was a result of the engraver's inattention, revision or even Chopin's proofreading. The change seems too insignificant to bother about, which rather eliminates the last two possibilities. According to us, we can take one other scenario into account, maybe the most likely – the visible traces of corrections in the L.H. part reveal that the parts of both hands were initially misaligned (while planning the L.H., the engraver did not take into consideration the final R.H. quaver). Had leggieriss. been in the area of the correction, the engraver could have then inaccurately reproduced it from memory.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions

b. 34-35

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

till 3rd beat in A

Longer  in GE (→FE,EE,FESB)
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 44

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Slur to bar 45 in A

Slur to D in GE (→FE,EE)
..

At the end of b. 44, both slurs in A, in the R.H. and the L.H., are provided with clearly marked endings – the R.H. slur ends on the last note in the bar, d1 (one can see an erased ending of the slur, reaching further), while the L.H. slur reaches the quaver at the beginning of b. 45 (one can see an added ending of the slur going beyond the bar line). Nevertheless, in GE (→FE,EE) the L.H. slur was led only to the end of b. 44, probably due to graphical difficulties (caused by the fact that the stems of one of the L.H. triplets were pointing upwards, which was a routine intervention yet contrary to A) – one can see that it was not feasible to lead the slur further without compromising the shape of the slur.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 45-46

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Different accents in A, literal reading

Long accents in A, possible interpretation

Short accents in GE1 (→FE,GE2→FESB)

Short accent in b. 46 in GE3

Vertical accent in b. 46 in EE
..

It is uncertain whether Chopin meant the accents over the B1-B and B-b octaves to be long or short, since despite a strictly analogous situation, in A the marks differ in length. In the main text we suggest long accents, since the accent of A in b. 46 can be considered long – it is also the accent over e2 in the R.H. that is shorter than its counterpart in b. 45. The version of A, when interpreted literally, and the short accents of GE1 (→FE,GE2→FESB) can be, however, regarded as equivalent variants. In the latter version, the difference between the L.H. accents (short) and the R.H. accents (long) constitutes a detail corresponding to the difference between the length of the accentuated L.H. () and R.H. () notes as well as to the difference between the liveliness and nature of the L.H. motifs and the R.H. top voice.
The omission of the first accent in EE and GE3 could be ascribed to the engravers' inattention or their reluctance to obscure the image with a mark on the stave, between the notes. The change of the accent font in EE is a specific manner of that edition.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , Inaccuracies in A

b. 47-48

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Vertical accents in AsI

Different accents in A (→GE1→GE2)

Short accents in FE

Short accents in EE

Long accent in b. 48 in FESB

Long accents in GE3
..

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

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE ,