mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 5

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

  in A, contextual interpretation

  after A

  in GE (→FE,FESB)

  in EE
..

In A, the pair of dynamic hairpins was written as close as possible to the top voice so that it was clear that it concerned this very voice; the slightly shortened  mark is a result of lack of space. For reasons of clarity, in the main text we move the marks over the stave. In GE (→FE,FESB) the  mark was prolonged, which could be considered acceptable; however, as a consequence, the mark seems to concern the R.H. bottom voice too, which is exactly what Chopin wanted to avoid in A. In the version of EE, the original notation is distorted even more (due to lack of access to A).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

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. 23

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

in A

in GE (→FE,EE)

in FESB
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Revisions in FESB

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 FE

Accent in EE
..

Due to the seemingly insignificant shifts of the  hairpin, first in GE and then in FE and EE, in FE and EE the mark became an accent on c4, separate or associated with . 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