mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Long accents

b. 14

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Long accent in A

in GE (→FE,EE)

No sign in FESB
..

The traces of erasure visible in A reveal that Chopin initially inserted the  mark under the bottom stave, more or less there where it is to be found in the editions. It can also be seen that the initial mark was longer, since it reached the first L.H. quaver. The corrected version of the mark was shortened and moved over the first chord. In this form, the mark is to be interpreted as a long accent, which we give in the main text. The engraver of GE (→FE1,EE) moved the mark, which he most certainly considered a diminuendo, under the stave, probably to avoid a contradiction with poco cresc. or simply due to lack of space over the stave (a hairpin on the stave is poorly visible; such a solution is applied only in exceptional cases).
The fact that the mark is absent in FESB is most probably due to an oversight, one of a few in this bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Long accents , Corrections in A , GE revisions

b. 25

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Short accents in A (probable interpretation→GE)

Long accents in A, possible interpretation 

No marks in FE

Vertical accents in EE
..

The accents in A are shorter than the ones over the bass notes in this bar, but the difference is so insignificant that it is uncertain which marks Chopin meant here. The absence of marks in both impressions of FE is either an oversight or a revision – the latter seems more likely, especially in the case of FESB, which was based on GE2, during the final period of its presence on the market, hence when the plates must have already been as worn out as evidenced by the copy presented in our system. Upon seeing the very clear outlines of the removed elements, they could have assumed that the accents over d1 were the remaining elements of the initial, misplaced marks and that it is only the accents over the bass notes that should stay. Anyways, a possible change introduced by Chopin while proofreading FE1 seems less likely than one of the above possibilities. 
The change of the accents over d1 to vertical ones was a typical arbitrary decision of EE.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in FE

b. 25-27

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Long accents in A (→GE→FE)

Vertical accents in EE
..

The length of the five accents over each subsequent bass note differs in A – they get shorter with each note; however, it is an inaccuracy of notation, since it is only the last accent that could be considered short (but in a different context). In GE1 (→GE2,FE) the accents are not homogeneous either, but it is most probably also due to graphical reasons – the shortest accent, over e, was squeezed in between the notes of the top voice and could not have been longer. The accents in GE3 are also long, while the ones in FESB could be considered long. By contrast, in EE the horizontal accents were replaced with vertical ones, which was a frequent arbitrary decision in Wessel's publications; a similar change was performed, e.g. in this entire line, also in b. 25 (see the adjacent note) and 27.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions

b. 27

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

 in A, probable interpretation

Long accent for L.H. e1 in GE1 (→GE2,FESB)

Short accent on a in FE1

Vertical accent on e1 in EE

Long accent on F in GE3
..

It was first the engraver of GE and then the engravers of the subsequent editions who had problems interpreting the  mark visible in A. According to us, it is a diminuendo hairpin following , as in b. 20, 24 or 28; in addition, the mark rather applies to the R.H. In GE1 (→GE2→FESB) the mark was placed next to the stem of the L.H. e1 crotchet, which could be interpreted as a long accent concerning that note, which, graphically speaking, can be considered a possible interpretation of the notation of A. It was also EE that interpreted the mark in GE1 as an accent over e1, yet its form was changed to a vertical accent (as was the case with the previous accents in b. 25-27). By contrast, in FE the mark of GE1 was moved even lower, which resulted in an accent over the a quaver. The most far-reaching revision was performed in GE3, in which the accent was moved over the bass F minim, considering it a continuation of the sequence of the bass note accents. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 45-46

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Different accents in A, literal reading

Long accents in A, possible interpretation

Short accents in GE1 (→FE,GE2→FESB)

Short accent in b. 46 in GE3

Vertical accent in b. 46 in EE
..

It is uncertain whether Chopin meant the accents over the B1-B and B-b octaves to be long or short, since despite a strictly analogous situation, in A the marks differ in length. In the main text we suggest long accents, since the accent of A in b. 46 can be considered long – it is also the accent over e2 in the R.H. that is shorter than its counterpart in b. 45. The version of A, when interpreted literally, and the short accents of GE1 (→FE,GE2→FESB) can be, however, regarded as equivalent variants. In the latter version, the difference between the L.H. accents (short) and the R.H. accents (long) constitutes a detail corresponding to the difference between the length of the accentuated L.H. () and R.H. () notes as well as to the difference between the liveliness and nature of the L.H. motifs and the R.H. top voice.
The omission of the first accent in EE and GE3 could be ascribed to the engravers' inattention or their reluctance to obscure the image with a mark on the stave, between the notes. The change of the accent font in EE is a specific manner of that edition.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , Inaccuracies in A