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

b. 216

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

2 staccato dots in A, probable reading

No marks in remaining sources

8 staccato dots suggested by the editors
..

Both dots visible in A over the first two R.H. semiquavers are quite far from the notes and clearly not in the same line (vertically speaking); therefore, one wonders whether they are not accidental spots. However, the dots are clear and regular, while the shifts with respect to the notes they probably concern are similar both in terms of distance and direction. Therefore, we assume that they are staccato dots with which Chopin indicated a slightly different type of articulation – most probably lighter – of the  semiquavers. In the main text, for the sake of clarity, we suggest adding dots in the entire 1st half of the bar.
The markings were not included by GE1 and the remaining editions, perhaps due to the atypical placement described above. 

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

issues: Errors in GE

b. 222

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

e1-f1 in A (→GE→FE,EE,FESB)

c1-f1, our alternative suggestion
..

In the main text we give the version of all sources. However, the comparison with identical – except this detail – bars 214 and 238 suggests that it could be Chopin's mistake, since there are no musical reasons for complicating the performance of these 3 bars with such an insignificant difference. Due to the above, we suggest an alternative version, compliant with the indicated, analogous bars.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Errors of A

b. 224

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

4 R.H. staccato dots in A, literal reading

R.H. wedges & dots in A, contextual interpretation

16 wedges in GE (→FE,EE,FESB)

8 wedges & dots suggested by the editors

16 wedges & dots, our alternative suggestion
..

As with bar 216, the interpretation of the staccato markings in A is problematic, since the difference between the particular markings, so clear in bars 208-211 (wedges and dots), concerns only the size of the markings in this case – the dots over the 1st and 3rd semiquavers are clearly bigger than those over the 2nd and 4th ones. We consider it a consequence of carelessness and interpret it after the initial bars in this variation. In the main text we suggest adding respective markings in the L.H. part as well.
We regard the use of wedges only in the editions as a consequence of the arbitrary decision of the engraver of GE1. The addition of markings (wedges) in the 2nd half of the bar also seems unnecessary; we suggest the version with wedges and dots with necessary changes only as an alternative solution.  

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Wedges

b. 228-239

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

2-semiquaver beams in A

4-semiquaver beams in GE (→FE,EE,FESB)
..

The semiquavers being grouped differently in the editions resulted from an arbitrary decision of the engraver of GE1 – see bars 208-227. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 228-239

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

The initial edit of the solo part of this variation, the only one written down in AsI and crossed out in A, is discussed separately as Variation IV, initial version.  

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A