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
Rhythm
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Rhythm

b. 50

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 51-53

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Rhythm in AsI, contextual interpretation

Rhythm in A (→GE→FE,EE)
..

On the 2nd beat of each of these bars, the R.H. top voice is written down in AsI in twice as long rhythmic values than suggested by the time signature and the relation to the bottom voice: . Regardless of the mistake (cf. b. 45-46), it definitely means that the last notes of both voices should be performed simultaneously. However, a change introduced into A suggests that Chopin changed his mind and opted for a calmer rhythm, which, in turn, puts a greater emphasis on the independence of the solo part and the orchestral motifs using the following rhythm: .

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Dotted rhythms and triplets

b. 54

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Notation in A

Notation in GE (→FE,EE,FESB)

Notation suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we reproduce the notation of A, in which the dotted b2 crotchet opening the replica of the flute part is written over the 2nd semiquaver of the solo part. It seems to be a suggestion concerning the way the replica could be combined with the solo part while performing the piece without accompaniment – if we shift the moment the b2 note should be played, which is to the 2nd semiquaver, we are then able to play the entire replica with the L.H. (in the main text we add a hint signalising such a possibility). However, ascribing the aforementioned meaning to this detail could be questioned by pointing to the irregular arrangement of the replica notes in the 2nd half of the bar, where the placement of notes cannot correspond to the performance. However, the notation of the 2nd half of the bar probably results from a clumsy attempt to avoid a clash of notes with other elements of notation,  and the quaver flag of c2. In the case of b2, however, such an explanation is unconvincing. Moreover, a strong argument for Chopin planning the flute phrase to be performed with the left hand is the pedalling – the fact that it is marked in this very bar is best explained by the need to hold the bass note without using the left hand, which can then perform the melody over the R.H. figuration.
In the editions, the particular notes of the replica were arranged in accordance with the rhythmic values.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in A

b. 55-61

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Crotchets after minims in AsI & A (→GE→FESB)

Crotchets and minims together in EE

Various rhythms in FE
..

Unlike in b. 16-17 and subsequent, GE arranged the L.H. notes correctly: it is clearly indicated that each of the 4 notes in each half-bar figure should be played separately (only at the beginning of b. 60 the second note – a dotted crotchet – is written too close to the minim, which could raise doubts if considered without the context of this entire fragment). In spite of that, FE combined the dotted crotchet with the minim in two places (at the beginning of b. 60 and at the beginning of b. 55), thus suggesting that they should be performed simultaneously (the same mistake was also committed at the beginning of b. 62). In FESB the L.H. arrangement is greatly inaccurate; however, the defects are due to carelessness, supposedly without influence on the understanding of the rhythmic structure of these bars. The boldest distortion is to be found in EE, in which in all places the dotted crotchets are combined with the preceding minims, which means that they are to be played simultaneously (also in b. 62).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , FE revisions

b. 56-57

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

In both figures including rests, a hemidemisemiquaver beam was overlooked in FESB. Consequently, in each of these bars the R.H. has one too many hemidemisemiquavers.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FESB