mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

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. 11

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Slur from demisemiquaver in A (→GE→FE1→FE2)

Slur from semiquaver in EE & FESB
..

In the main text we keep the notation of A (→GE→FE1→FE2), in which the slur starts from the tied d4 demisemiquaver. Chopin would often apply such a type of notation of slurs throughout his entire life. The equivalent notation of EE and FESB probably reflects the individual preferences of the engravers of those editions.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies

b. 18-29

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Crotchets after minims in AsI & A (→GE)

Various rhythms in FE1

Crotchets mostly after minims in FESB

Crotchets and minims together in EE
..

As it was described in the note concerning b. 16-17, due to the notation of the harmonic legato in the L.H. part, the engraver of GE1-2 misunderstood the rhythm; consequently, the notation became more or less compliant with A only after corrections to a printed version. Generally, the dotted crotchets are separated from the minims; however, wherever there are no small rhythmic values in the R.H., the gaps are very small, while in the 2nd half of b. 18 the notes almost touch each other. Consequently, it contributed to the clearly erroneous versions of notation of FE and EE:

  • in FE1 it is only b. 19 and 23 and the 2nd half of b. 28 that are correct;
  • in FESB it is only the 1st half of b. 26 that is an exception to a generally correct version of notation;
  • in EE the erroneous combinations of minims with dotted crotchets were introduced into all bars.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE

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. 28-29

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

in A

in GE (→FESB)

Long accent in FE1

Accent in EE
..

Due to the seemingly insignificant shifts of the  hairpin, first in GE and then in FE1 and EE, in FE1 and EE the mark became an accent, separate or associated with , on c4. Such a version differs quite significantly from the notation of A, in which the mark concerns rather the b3-g3 motif.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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