mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 49

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

In A there is no  raising e2 to e2 at the beginning of the 5th semiquaver triplet. The accidental was added in GE (→FE,EE). On the 4th beat of the bar, there are no accidentals in the sources, which, however, cannot be considered a mistake in this piece – cf. b. 39-40.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 55-57

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No fingering in AsI & A (→GE1→EE,FE1→FE2)

Fingering in GE2 (→GE3,FESB)
..

In the main text we do not include the fingering added by GE2 (→GE3,FESB) due to its questionable authenticity. It is particularly the use of the 5th and 4th fingers in the 2nd figure in b. 56 and the 1st figure in b. 57 that is dubious – Chopin would repeat the 5th finger in similar contexts, e.g. in the Polonaise in E, Op. 22, b. 22. See also b. 57 and 58.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 57

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No fingering in AsI & A (→GE1→FE1,FESB)

Fingering in GE2 (→GE3,FESB)
..

The fingering added by GE2 (→GE3,FESB), although very natural in this bar, probably does not come from Chopin. It is indicated by the fingering entered into b. 55-56 and 58, probably by the same person yet less artful; more importantly, it is contrary to the Chopinesque fingering present in similar places in his other works.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 58

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No fingering in AsI & A (→GE1→FE1,EE)

Fingering in GE2 (→GE3,FESB)

Fingering in GE2 (→GE3,FESB)
..

The authenticity of the fingering added in this bar seems very problematic. Both the choice of the notes provided with digits and the fingering are questionable:

  • it is unclear why the indications appear only just here and why (despite the fact that the first group of digits does not define any pattern that could be continued) the fingering was abandoned and then resumed in a place that stands out only due to the fact that the second out of the notes provided with a digit is written with an error (no );
  • b. 17 and 73-74 of the Etude in C minor, Op. 10 No. 12 contain a L.H. figuration symmetrical to the discussed part of the roulade. The Chopinesque fingering that can be found there could be therefore used in b. 58 of the Variations: 
    As one can see, it is fundamentally different from the one provided in GE2.

Taking into account the above reservations and the incompliance of the fingering of GE2 with the Chopinesque one also in other situations (cf. b. 55-56), in the main text we do not include this fingering.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 63

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Only staccato in AsI

staccato ma leggier. in A (→GE→FESB)

staccato leggiero in FE

staccato ma leggiero in EE
..

In the main text, we keep the extended performance indication as provided in A (→GE→FESB). In the remaining editions, the Chopinesque leggier. abbreviation, not entirely clear, was replaced with leggiero, the meaning of which (but not the form) most probably corresponds to the indication intended by Chopin – see the note to b. 14. At the same time, in EE there are more abbreviations, while in FE1 (→FE2) the word 'ma' was omitted; those changes almost certainly resulted from revision or the engraver's inaccuracies.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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