mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues :

b. 180

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

in A (→GE1→GE2)

 in FE & EE

 in FESB

in GE3
..

According to the editors, the  sign in A (→GE1→GE2) is entered imprecisely because it includes a rest during which a crescendo cannot be started. In the main text, we give it a scope analogous to the next such sign. A similar interpretation is used in FE and EE, as well as in FESB, in which, however, the sign is reversed (diminuendo instead of crescendo). It's hard to say whether this was an intentional change or a mistake. On the contrary, in GE3 the sign was slightly extended, which was probably a revision.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Sign reversal , FE revisions , Revisions in FESB ,

b. 184

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

 in AsI

 & grace notes in A (→GE→FE,EE,FESB)

 with  & grace notes suggested by the editors
..

In AsI the ornament, added probably later, is provided with a draft and not entirely clear form; however, it is most probably . Chopin would often use this mark in the sense of  (at times they are even difficult to tell apart). Therefore, the use of a different mark does not have to mean that Chopin envisaged a longer ornament.
Placing a  under the third in FE, which, formally speaking, changes its meaning, is a routine manner of the engravers, who would often move marks (concerning particular notes, but also slurs) to the side of noteheads (in the editions the stems of the notes in the 2nd half of the bar point upwards). Cf., e.g. the Polonaise in F minor, Op. 44, b. 10. The absence of this  in FESB is most probably an oversight.

None of the sources includes a mark that would specify the sound of the ornament's top note. The prevailing key in b. 184-190, F major, requires the use of e2, which in the main text we indicate with naturals. Omissions of accidentals in similar situations is a rule rather than an exception in Chopin's pieces – apparently, the composer believed that the sense of key would suggest the right note to the performer.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in FE , Placement of markings , FE revisions , ,

b. 207

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

4 wedges on 2nd & 3rd quaver in A

4 wedges on 2nd & 3rd quaver after A

4 wedges after A & FE

5 wedges in GE (→EE)

5 wedges after GE (→EE)

5 wedges after GE (→EE)

Wedge on 2nd R.H. quaver and 3 L.H. wedges in FE

Wedge on 2nd R.H. quaver and 3 L.H. wedges after FE

2 L.H. wedges in FESB

2 L.H. wedges after FESB
..

The additional wedge in GE is, according to the editors, most likely a mistake by the engraver of GE1 – there is no reason why Chopin's possible addition of marks should only apply to the L.H. In turn, omission of the last R.H. wedge in FE is probably a side effect of the correction of the pitch of this quaver – see the adjacent note. The absence of 3 out of 5 wedges in FESB is most likely the result of the carelessness of the engraver of this edition. In the main text we provide wedges according to A, taking into account Chopin's correction of the last quaver introduced in FE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions ,

b. 230

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

4 staccato dots in A

16 wedges in GE (→FE,EE)

8 R.H. wedges in FESB
..

As with bar 224, it seems highly unlikely that the replacement of the four dots (emphasising in A the final melodic idea in this phrase) with wedges (reminding that the variation should be performed staccato) was introduced by GE1 under the influence of Chopin. In this edition this bar opens the page, which could have prompted the engraver (reviser?) to reinterpret the Chopinesque markings in such a way (markings that could be considered incomplete, cf. the adjacent note). The absence of wedges in the L.H. part in FESB is most probably the engraver's mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Wedges ,

b. 265

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

In the entire G major section of Variation V (bars 263-268), the pedalling markings are written in A rather carefully; however, it can be seen that more attention was paid to keeping the marks on the same level than to their correct alignment. In particular, the  marks in bar 265 are written before the bass D notes, as a result of which the preceding  marks had to be written sufficiently earlier. It did not lead to a significant inaccuracy at the end of bar 264; however, on the 2nd beat of bar 265, the  mark actually falls before the d-a-c1 quaver. Such an early pedal release could not have been intended by Chopin, since the  and  marks are written next to each other and almost certainly simply indicate a pedal change.
The notation of the editions is similar to the notation of A; however, it is less confusing due to different proportions of gaps between the notes and due to the size of the marks.
FESB overlooked the  sign on the 2nd beat.

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

issues: Inaccuracies in A ,