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. 256

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

e notes in A, literal reading

E notes in AsI & A (contextual interpretation→GE→FE,EE)
..

In the entire passage Chopin did not insert any accidentals except the naturals to the 1st and 3rd notes (e and a). The necessity to raise subsequent a to a is beyond dispute; however, the use of e1, e2 and e3 would be harmonically and pianistically possible. Nevertheless, the majority of the arguments support the use of e1, e2 and e3:

  • in figurations based on repeating a certain figure in various octaves (most often arpeggios or scales), Chopin considered the accidentals put in the first figure to be valid in the entire sequence. He would mark possible exceptions with cautionary accidentals, e.g. the flats to b2 in bars 60 and 62. If he had heard e1 in the discussed passage, most probably he would have provided it with a ;
  • the above reasoning is partially confirmed by AsI, which has a  before the penultimate note of beat 1 (e3);
  • the harmonic context is based on an F major chord (without e seventh), which is confirmed both by the orchestral part and the piano chords (on the 3rd quaver and at the end of the bar). The e notes in the arpeggio would be regarded chord tones, giving an impression of a dominant seventh chord (F7). By contrast, we hear the altered e notes as non-chord tones, which contributes to the impression that the F major chord is regarded as the harmonic basis;
  • the naturals raising e1 to e1 and e2 to e2 were added in GE (→FE,EE) (the latter also influences e3; a third  was added only by GE3), even if inserted by the reviser, were not questioned by Chopin in the stage of proofreading FE1.

As far as the missing naturals to a1 and a2 are concerned, in GE1 (→FE1,GE2→FESB) it was only the one to a2 that was added, which was supplemented by EE and GE3.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , Inaccuracies in A

b. 256

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

In the manuscripts there are no accidentals in the second triplet (on the 3rd beat of the bar). In the main text we include both added flats – perhaps by Chopin in GE (→FE,EE) – although it is only the  restoring a1 that is indispensable. Incidentally, also in the previous triplet, an octave higher, the  to g2 present in all sources is also of a cautionary nature.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Authentic corrections of GE , Last key signature sign

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. 257

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

e & g in #ApI, Af, A & FE

e & g in GE1 (→EE)

e & g in GE2 (→GE3,FESB)
..

We give the last chord as written down in AsI, Af and A, without any doubts, and as restored – almost certainly by Chopin – in the stage of proofreading FE1. The versions of GE1 (→EE) and GE2 (→GE3,FESB), both musically possible, although less natural than the text of A, most probably resulted from revisions, suggested by the apt additions to the 2nd half of bar 255, introduced just before – the reviser of GE1 added there 3 naturals raising e2, e1 and e to e2, e1 and e, while the reviser of GE2 4 naturals raising g1 to g1 in the L.H. and g2, g1 and g to g2, g1 and g in the R.H.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 257

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

f3 in chord in AsI & A

d3 in Af, FE1 (→FE2) & GE2 (→GE3,FESB)

es3 in GE1 (→EE)
..

The version of AsI and A with f3 as the topmost note of the chord on the 2nd beat of the bar is almost certainly erroneous, and it was d3 that was intended by Chopin from the very beginning. It is supported by:

  • d3 here in Af, written almost certainly earlier than A;
  • melodic analogy between the motifs at the beginning of bars 255 and 257 and the ascending sixths, d1-d3-b3 and f1-f2-d3, respectively;
  • d3 in FE1 (→FE2), which, with respect to the erroneous version of GE1 (see below), must have resulted from proofreading, most probably Chopinesque;
  • the natural character of the octave piano position.

What is more, the discussed note is written in A inaccurately, hence in GE1 (→EE) it was reproduced as e3. In GE2 (→GE3,FESB) it was changed to d3, which could have been one of the changes suggested by Chopin, if we were to assume that he took part in the editing of GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Errors in the number of ledger lines , Errors of A , Inaccurate note pitch in A , Authentic corrections of FE , Inaccuracies in A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE