mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Uncertain slur continuation

b. 47-48

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Slur in A

No slur in GE (→FE,EE,FESB)
..

In all editions, bar 47 is the final one in the line; moreover, the slur that reaches b. 48 was overlooked in it – it is only the ending of that slur that was printed in b. 48 (in FE this fragment was overlooked too). The diligence with which three different editions – EE, FESB and GE3 – reproduced this clearly erroneous notation is truly puzzling. In our transcriptions, due to a different layout, we treat the versions of all editions as not including a slur.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Errors in GE , Uncertain slur continuation , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 194-195

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Slur in GE (→FE,EE), contextual interpretation

Slur after GE (→FE,EE), contextual interpretation
..

The slur between these bars was added in GE1, possibly by Chopin. However, the notation is inaccurate, as only the ending of the slur in bar 195, on a new line, is printed. According to the editors, a mistaken placement of this slur cannot be ruled out, especially since there is no slur in this place in a similar phrase in bars 178-179. On the other hand, the vast majority (8 out of 11) of figures in which a demisemiquaver after a rest precedes a note of a different pitch are covered by a two-note slur. In addition, 2 out of 3 situations in which there is no slur are problematic – the slur in bars 180-181 has almost certainly been missed (in the analogous bars 192-193 the appropriate slur is present), and in bar 194 the demisemiquaver b1 leads in the melody to c2, but b1 is repeated in the lower voice. Taking into account this statistic and the possibility of Chopin's correction, we include the slur in question in the main text.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Authentic corrections of GE , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 335-336

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

The slurs of AsI are written offhandedly; they signal an intent rather than represent actual marks. This intent were most probably slurs encompassing the entire passage, including the 1st quaver in bar 336.
In A both slurs – both in the R.H. and the L.H. – indicate that the slurs from bar 335 (at the end of a line) should be continued, which is, however, not confirmed by bar 336, which does not contain their endings. In this case, there are no doubts that the slurs are supposed to reach the end of the passage, and this is how it was interpreted in GE (→FE,EE). In FESB the L.H. slur erroneously reaches only the end of bar 335.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation , Inaccuracies in FESB

b. 376-377

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Slur to beginning of bar 377 in AsI & A

Slur to beginning of bar 377 in AsI & A

Slur to last note of b. 376 in GE (→FE,EE)

Slur to last note of b. 376 in GE (→FE,EE)
..

In GE (→EE) the slur starting in bar 376, which ends a line, clearly suggests that it should be continued; however, there is no ending thereof in bar 377. In FE and FESB the slur was led only to the last semiquaver in bar 376, interpreting the notation of GE as an inaccurate ending of the slur. We interpret it similarly in the content transcription of GE and EE.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Uncertain slur continuation