mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in GE

b. 195-196

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No slur in AsI

Slur from g1-b2 in A, literal reading

Slur from 2nd chord after A

Slur from e2 in A (contextual interpretation→GE→FE,EE)

Slur from e2 after GE (→FE,EE)
..

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 255

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

As far as the naturals raising e to e in the 2nd half of bar 255 are concerned, in A Chopin was satisfied with accidentals to the L.H. chord (e1) and the 3rd demisemiquaver (e3). The remaining 3 naturals necessary later in the passage were added by GE (→FE,EE).
In EE the  to the L.H. chord, which was placed slightly too low in GE1, was interpreted as a natural raising d1 to d1.
In A the  to e3 is written too low, at the pitch of c3. Such inaccuracies are often to be found in Chopin's autographs, generally – as is the case here – with no influence on the interpretation of the text.

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

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , GE revisions , Accidental below/above the note , Inaccuracies in A

b. 256

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Shorter slurs in Af

Various slurs in A

Longer slurs in GE (→FE,EE)
..

In the main text we reproduce the clearly written slurs of A, although it is uncertain whether by differentiating the range of these slurs Chopin really wanted to suggest a detail of articulation. Both remaining, unified versions of slurring can be regarded as equivalent variants. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 265

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

in A

in GE1 (→GE2)

 in FE1, EE & GE3

in FESB
..

The  hairpin is written in A between the staves and begins after the 1st R.H. chord (in Af the bottom arm starts as early as at the beginning of the bar). In GE (→FE,EE) the mark was moved to over the R.H. part, which, in this case, does not significantly influence its meaning. The change was most probably forced by lack of space between the staves; it cannot come from Chopin. The slight change of range in GE1 (→GE2) – the beginning of the mark was moved slightly to the right – was intensified by all subsequent editions, while FESB additionally reversed the direction of the mark, which is a frequent mistake in the first editions of Chopin's pieces. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Placement of markings , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Sign reversal

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