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. 270

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No marking in sources

[] suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we suggest adding a  asterisk at the end of the bar. Chopin probably considered this bar an ending of the piece (movement), where he would often omit a pedal release mark. We consider it necessary to add this mark, not so much due to the need of releasing pedal before Alla Polacca starts, but to prevent possible earlier changes of pedal, which almost certainly were not intended by Chopin.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: No pedal release mark

b. 270

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

In this entire bar, in AsI and A there is only one  raising a1 to a1 before the 1st semiquaver. In GE (→FE) accidentals were added to a2 in the 3rd semiquaver and to a in the 2nd half of the bar. An accidental to a3 is present only in EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 271-272

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

2 wedges, 4 dots in A

5 wedges in GE (→FE,EE)
..

The precise Chopinesque articulation markings – wedges at the beginning of the bar and dots further on – were arbitrarily standardised in GE (→FE,EE). It was the entire finale of the Variations that was subject to this arbitrary unification of staccato markings. According to us, such a decision could have been influenced by both types of staccato intertwining in A, doubly burdensome for the engraver:

  • when deciphering the text, since the differences between the marks are not always obvious at first sight, not to mention discovering the key Chopin followed when choosing one or the other type of marks;
  • when engraving, due to the need to change the die often (or due to the need to develop a page twice, once for dots and subsequently for wedges).

The missing staccato mark over the crotchet in bar 271 is most probably the engraver's mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Wedges

b. 273

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

The second note in the L.H. part in AsI, A (→GE→FE) and EE3 is a dotted quaver, as a result of which the bar is a semiquaver too short. In the full, orchestral version of this tutti, the cello (and bassoon) phrase starts from the beginning of the bar with a dotted crotchet, which could have suggested to Chopin that it was also in the version for one piano, after shifting the beginning to the 2nd quaver, that the new value should be dotted. The mistake, easy to detect, was noticed and corrected only by FESB. By contrast, in EE1 (→EE2) the dot prolonging this note was left out – it could have been a failed attempt at correcting this mistake.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , Rhythmic errors , Errors of A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Revisions in FESB

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