mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 44

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

 in A (→GE→FE,EE)

No sign in FESB
..

The lack of a  sign is almost certainly an oversight by the FESB engraver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FESB

b. 45

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Wedge in A (→GE→FE,EE)

No mark in FESB
..

The missing wedge for the L.H. octave is a mistake of FESB (revision? – in this layout the wedge could have seemed superfluous, since the one over the R.H. chord is valid for the L.H. too). A comparison with b. 46 reveals that in this version of the initial motif of the theme of the Variations, Chopin wanted to mark each of the first three notes with staccato markings (different – see the next note).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 45-46

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Staccato dots in A

Wedges in GE (→FE,EE,FESB)
..

In the main text we keep the staccato dots clearly written down in both bars in A. The wedges of GE (→FE,EE) probably resulted from the engraver's carelessness or from his conviction that the marks could be regarded as equivalent.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Wedges

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. 45

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

in A

No sign in GE (→FE,EE,FESB)
..

The mark was omitted, probably due to lack of space between the great staves on a inaptly laid-out page in GE1.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE