b. 297
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
In the main text, we provide staccato dots inscribed in A. The wedges pencilled into #ApI are the first attempt at articulation marks here. On the other hand, the version of the editions must be the aftermath of the unjustified conviction of the engraver of GE1 that all staccato marks in the finale of the Variations are wedges. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Wedges |
||||||
b. 297
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
In the main text we omit the to e1 in the 3rd semiquaver triplet, unnecessarily repeated in the sources. In A one can see that initially there was also a in the 5th triplet, from which, however, it was removed. By contrast, we leave the reminder to d2 in the 4th triplet, since d3, occurring a moment later, may raise doubts as to the sound of this note. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Cautionary accidentals |
||||||
b. 297
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The lack of accents in AsI results from the working nature of this score. In FESB, they were probably overlooked. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||
b. 298
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I
..
There is an erroneous before the 1st semiquaver in the L.H. in the 2nd half of the bar in FE1. The mistake was corrected already in FE2. It is probably a revision, although Chopin's participation cannot be excluded. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||
b. 298
|
composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III
..
Reproducing the wedge over d1 as a dot must be an inaccuracy of GE (→FE→EE). In turn, the dot for the L.H., added in EE and GE2, is a revision of the editors. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |