mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in FE

b. 267

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

in AsI & A (→GE→FE1,EE)

No ornament in FESB
..

The missing  mark in FESB must be an oversight of the engraver; in this bar, he also overlooked 2 accents and a grace note.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 268-269

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

2 staccato dots in A

Wedge in GE1 (→FE,GE2→FESB)

2 wedges in EE

3 wedges in GE3
..

In A the staccato marks over the bass G notes are clearly dots in this bar, and not wedges, as was the case before and as was conveyed by GE and the remaining editions. It was not an inaccuracy of notation, since in both places one can see traces of corrections (erasures). In the next bars, the bass notes are not marked staccato at all, which may suggest that the articulation should get gradually longer (milder?) as the modulation progresses and as the music calms down.
The absence of the second mark in GE1 (→FE,GE2→FESB) probably resulted from an oversight (or the engraver was uncertain which mark to apply). The additions in EE (the 2nd wedge in bar 268) and GE3 (the 2nd wedge in bar 268 and the wedge over the first F in bar 269) were arbitrary decisions of the revisers.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Wedges

b. 273

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

In EE the instrument indication was changed: from the Chopinesque "Cello" to "V-llo", which, of course, denotes the same instrument. In FESB the marking reads "Collo", which is a mistake.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE

b. 289

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

4-note chords in A (→GE→EE,FESB)

5-, 4- & 3-note chords in FE1 (→FE2)
..

We include the changes, undoubtedly Chopinesque, introduced by FE1 (→FE2), in the main text as the latest authentic version. See also both notes in the next bar.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 314

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No fingering in AsI & FESB

5 w A (literal reading→GE1→GE2,FE,EE)

3 in A (possible interpretation) & GE3
..

The fingering digit written in A could be interpreted twofold: as a '5', which is more graphically likely, or as a '3', which seems more natural, pianistically speaking. The source of the problem was the will to fit in the digit (apparently added later) under the word loco, ending the octave sign, which forced Chopin to write this digit almost horizontally; consequently, the resulting unnatural shape hampers the identification. The majority of the sources include a '5', whereas in the main text, we suggest a '3', due to practical reasons; it was also GE3 that considered this digit to be right. Such a solution is also supported by AsI, in which one can see deleted digits over the first two notes in the bar, most probably 5-4. In FESB both this digit and the adjacent ones were most probably overlooked (see the previous note).

The digit '3' added in pencil in our copy of GE2 is of no source value.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A