mUltimate Chopin

Op. 2, Variation IV, primitive version

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Pitch
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Pitch

b. 7

composition: Op. 2, Variation IV, primitive version

Arpeggios from a1 in AsI

Arpeggios from a1 in AsI

Arpeggios from c2 in A

Arpeggios from c2 in A
..

As in bars 1-2 and 5-6, in AsI Chopin kept the position of the hemidemisemiquaver figures, in spite of the melody semiquavers, which are each time farther away. In the final version, he reduced the distance between the melody semiquavers and the preceding arpeggio-like figures. The same in bar 23. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Accompaniment changes

b. 8

composition: Op. 2, Variation IV, primitive version

Arpeggios from f1 in AsI, basic version

Arpeggios from f1 in AsI, basic version

Arpeggios from b1 & f2 in A

Arpeggios from b1 & f2 in A
..

In the 1st half of the bar (2. volta) the principal AsI version (written first, with normal-sized notes) refers to the principal version of bars 1-2 and 5-6 – the hemidemisemiquaver group does not move in parallel with the melody semiquavers. Nevertheless, this version is compatible (in an acceptable way) with both versions of the 2nd half of bar 7, hence these places can be treated independently.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Accompaniment changes , Main-line changes

b. 8

composition: Op. 2, Variation IV, primitive version

D-B in AsI

D-d in A
..

In AsI one can see that the bass note on the 4th quaver in the bar was remade, that is B1 was changed to D. According to us, it could have been a simplified correction, marking the change of both first hemidemisemiquavers, which would result in a text compliant with A. However, it is only a conjecture, hence we regard the AsI text as an intermediate variant between a figure starting with a B1-B octave and the A version with a D-d octave.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections of AI

b. 9

composition: Op. 2, Variation IV, primitive version

Arpeggio from c1 in AsI

Arpeggio from c1 in AsI

Arpeggio from f1 in A

Arpeggio from f1 in A
..

In A Chopin simplified the L.H. part by standardising the first 2 figures. A similar situation is to be found in bar 13.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Accompaniment changes

b. 11

composition: Op. 2, Variation IV, primitive version

3rd note b in AsI

3rd note g in A
..

In AsI the 3rd hemidemisemiquaver in each group is b. However, the manuscript bears traces of hesitation with respect to the pitch of these groups – in three of them, over the 4th note (c) one can see an added notehead of a g note, crossed out in the 1st and 3rd groups. Therefore, it seems that Chopin pondered replacing the final c note with g, yet he gave up on the idea. The A text, in which g replaced not the 4th, but the 3rd note in the passages (b) would mean that Chopin changed the 2nd pair of hemidemisemiquavers in these figures 3 times – he started from b-c, which he changed to b-g, then he returned to initial b-c, to eventually change them to g-c.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Chopin's hesitations , Accompaniment changes , Corrections of AI