mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variations, complete

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Rhythmic errors

b. 14

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

h2 sustained in A (→GE→FE,EE)

No prolongation in FESB
..

The b2 note, provided with a ten., is prolonged to a crotchet in A (→GE→FE,EE). It seems to be Chopin's mistake, since such a long value would have to be held also at the beginning of the 2nd half of the bar, which would certainly be a mistake. To avoid doubts, we change it to a quaver, almost exactly corresponding to its actual length. The fact that FESB omitted that extension could have resulted from that erroneous notation, with which the engraver did not know what to do.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Rhythmic errors , Errors of A , FE revisions

b. 45

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

In A and all editions, the e1 note on the 3rd crotchet in the bar is wrongly a double dotted crotchet. In AsI the note has the correct rhythmic value.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Rhythmic errors , Errors of A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 56

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

6 notes on 5th quaver-beat in AsI

5 notes in A (→GE→FE,EE), interpretation
..

In A and in all editions, over the 5-note 1st half of the figure on the 3rd beat of the bar, we can observe a seemingly wrong digit – 6. However, the error consists in a missing note – a2 between b2 and g2 – which is proven by:

  • the text of AsI, which includes this note. The figure begins with a written-out turn, like the three remaining similar phrases in b. 55-57;
  • discrepancy between the number of the notes and the actual number, which means that Chopin did not realise that he was entering a text containing a smaller number of notes. Therefore, it is not a change of concept but an oversight.

The mistake remained unnoticed, both by Chopin (who was probably proofreading GE1 and certainly FE1) and by the revisers, who did not check the rhythmic correctness of this figure.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Rhythmic errors , Errors of A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 69

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

Chopin erroneously wrote the syncopated c2 note on the 2nd quaver in the bar as a double dotted crotchet. The mistake was only noticed by FESB, which tried to amend it by replacing the dots with a semiquaver, connected to the crotchet by a tie (in this place there is actually no tie, but this must have been the reviser's intention, which is proven by the ties in analogous situations in b. 77 and 89). Rhythmically speaking, the notation is correct; however, it is unclear due to the arrangement of the notes – the added semiquaver was placed not over the last quaver in the bottom voice, but right next to the crotchet. In the main text we suggest the same rhythmic values yet correctly arranged and beamed. Chopin used a similar notation in the Prelude in C minor, Op. 45, b. 7, 11 and analog.
Similar situations are to be found in b. 77 and 89. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Rhythmic errors , Errors of A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 77

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

Crotchet & quaver g2 in AsI

Extended crotchet & semiquaver in remaining sources
..

As was the case with b. 69, in the majority of the sources (except FESB) the syncopated g2 crotchet is prolonged with two dots, which leads to an excess of rhythmic values – 5 quavers in the bar. The mistake was noticed and corrected (awkwardly in terms of graphics) only in FESB.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Rhythmic errors , Errors of A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE