mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in FE

b. 14

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

ten. in A (→GE→FE,EE)

No indication in FESB
..

The missing ten. must be an oversight or revision (the stem prolonging b2 was also overlooked/omitted).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 25

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

il canto in A (→GE→EE,FESB)

No indication in FE
..

It seems unlikely that Chopin would have removed from FE1 the second part of the indication on purpose, although it is actually completely unnecessary in this context – due to its position, ben marcato can concern only the topmost R.H. notes. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

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. 39-40

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

As in b. 35-36, in A Chopin overlooked some necessary accidentals, mainly in b. 40 – a  to d2 and a  to e2 in the R.H. and a  to e1 and a  to d2 in the L.H. (the use of accidentals in b. 39 is not fully codified due to the octave sign, as a result of which the  to e3 and the  to d2 could be considered superfluous). All necessary accidentals – subject to the situation described in the brackets above – were already added in GE1 (→FE1,EE,GE2→GE3). In EE a  to d2 before the 6th semiquaver in b. 39 was also added.
FESB repeated the accidentals of GE1; however, it was a  instead of a  that was placed to the 6th semiquaver in b. 39, which resulted in an erroneous e1 note; moreover, a  to d2 was added before the 8th semiquaver in this bar, which does not make sense – the accidental, if necessary at all, should be before the 6th semiquaver.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 39

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

in A (→GE→EE,FESB)

No sign in FE1 (→FE2)
..

In the main text we keep the  hairpin present in A (→GE→EE,FESB). It seems that an oversight of the engraver of FE1 (→FE2) is a more likely explanation for its absence than a possible removal of the mark by Chopin (which he could have done while proofreading FE1).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE