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

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 5

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

  in A, contextual interpretation

  in GE (→FE,FESB)

  in EE
..

In A, the pair of dynamic hairpins was written as close as possible to the top voice so that it was clear that it concerned this very voice; the slightly shortened  mark is a result of lack of space. For reasons of clarity, in the main text we move the marks over the stave. In GE (→FE,FESB) the  mark was prolonged, which could be considered acceptable; however, as a consequence, the mark seems to concern the R.H. bottom voice too, which is exactly what Chopin wanted to avoid in A. In the version of EE, the original notation is distorted even more (due to lack of access to A).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in A

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

 in A, contextual interpretation

in GE (→FE)

in EE

in FESB
..

In A, the short  mark is placed in b. 6; however, since it reaches only the 1st crotchet in that bar, it is obvious that it concerns the f1-g1 step between the bars, which we give in the main text. The versions of editions are based on the interpretation of that mark performed by GE1, in which its right-hand ending is led to the 2nd beat of the bar, which has no basis in the notation of A. In spite of minor differences in the range of the marks in the editions, we regard them as different, since each may suggest a slightly different beginning or ending of the crescendo, while the mark in FESB actually resembles a reversed accent.

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

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in A

b. 10

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Staccato dots in A

Wedges in GE (→FE,EE,FESB)
..

We attribute the change of dots to wedges to the engraver's carelessness (manner?), since there are many more such changes of staccato marks, musically unjustified, e.g. in b. 14 or 35. See also b. 271-272.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Wedges

b. 11

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

In FE and FESB the wedges over the L.H. sixth were omitted. These are probably errors.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FESB

b. 14

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Staccato dots in A

Wedges in GE (→FE,EE,FESB)
..

As was the case with b. 10, the change of dots to wedges in GE (→FE,EE) does not seem to have been inspired by Chopin; however, he could have accepted it – cf. the note on slurs at the beginning of this bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Wedges