mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE inaccuracies

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. 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. 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

b. 63

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

No mark in AsI & A

Long accent in GE (→FE)

Short accent in EE & FESB
..

The long accent added by GE1 could be considered a revision or even Chopin's intervention were it not for the  marking situated in the same place. The chord provided with this dynamic indication ends a long diminuendo (running from the beginning of this extended bar); therefore, emphasising it would be contrary to Chopin's clear idea, which was to attenuate the music. We assume a possible "symmetrical reflection" mistake – the accent that was supposed to be placed under the stem of the e1 crotchet after the minim chord was printed over the stem of the F-c fifth preceding that chord. Taking into account the above, we do not give this accent in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Authentic corrections of GE