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

Verbal indications

b. 240

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No indication in AsI

marcato from 1st quaver in A

marcato after first quaver in GE (→FE,EE,FESB)
..

The change in the placement of the marcato indication, introduced by GE1 and the remaining editions, does not seem to be accidental; however, its authenticity remains uncertain. Therefore, in the main text we give the version of A, considering the notation of GE (→FE,EE,FESB) an equal variant.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 262

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

on 4th beat in A & FESB

on 3rd beat in GE (→FE1,EE)
..

According to us, the placement of the  indication is an example of Chopin using here a convention of writing indications within and not at the beginning of the scope of their validity. Due to the above, in the main text we give preference to the version of GE (→FE1,EE). The version of FESB resulted from the engraver's inaccuracy, and its compliance with A must be accidental, since throughout the entire piece, no features of FESB suggest that this publisher could have had an insight into A. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Centrally placed marks , Inaccuracies in FESB

b. 266

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

accelerando in AsI

No indication in Af & A (→GE→FE,EE)
..

The term "accelerando" is used in #AI instead of dynamic indications. In the editors' opinion, this does not necessarily mean that Chopin did not anticipate dynamic nuances here when writing this score – see the note below. It can also be assumed that the lack of this instruction in the version prepared for publication does not mean giving up agogic freedom when playing this figure – the difference in markings is rather a result of the emphasis placed on a different aspect of execution. Therefore, we do not treat these indications as mutually exclusive.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 266

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

The term legatiss. is not present in AsI, but in Af it is already marked on the 4th beat, between the staves. Chopin wrote leg[g]ierissi[mo] and leg there – the latter probably meaning legatiss. – which seem to have been replaced by probably later added dynamic cues, such as in A. The order in which the individual instructions were entered is not entirely certain, but leggieriss., which does not appear among the terms in the final version, has been clearly deleted.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

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