Issues : Omissions to cancel alteration

b. 325

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

d3 in AsI

e3 in A (→GEFE,EE), literal reading

e3 suggested by the editors

..

The pitch of the 2nd semiquaver in the 5th triplet is questionable – when interpreted literally, it is an e3; however, in all analogous places a respective note is placed a fifth (perfect) lower than the previous one, in this case e3, which suggests Chopin's possible mistake. In uneven triplets, the 2nd and 3rd semiquavers melodically combine with the next triplet, which Chopin carefully marked with R.H. slurs; however, this does not determine their harmonic affiliation. The latter is determined by the L.H. sequence (with different slurs!), consisting of D-T sequences filling two subsequent quavers, which, in turn, is clearly signalled by the bass voice beams. If we also take into account Chopin's tendency to forget about previous alterations (in this case it is really far – this is the only bar within bars 321-329 in which the 1st semiquaver is altered), an accidental oversight of a  restoring e3 seems very likely. Therefore, the absence of a  to the unquestionable e3 in the next triplet belongs to Chopin's typical inaccuracies – it is a note belonging to the current chord (A major) and was marked a semiquaver earlier in the L.H. part. Taking into consideration the above, in the main text we suggest adding accidentals so that the discussed fragment of the progression does not deviate from the binding scheme.

In AsI the 5th triplet in the bar is presented in the initial form (see also bar 328), in which the problematic note is absent. The introduction of a change in this place is an argument for Chopin's mistake in A, since corrections narrow down the attention field, which is conducive to errors.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors resulting from corrections , Errors of A , Main-line changes

b. 326

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

..

In FE, the 8th and 10th semiquavers in the R.H. are a b2. The harmonic and pianistic context point to patent mistakes, which were corrected in EE and GE3. In turn, in GE1 (→GE2), the 8th semiquaver was changed to a2, yet a  before the 10th note was not added. The absence of corrections in the pupils' copies proves that the pupils most probably performed the correct text, perhaps without checking thoroughly the notation. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions

b. 328

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

..

In FE, there is no accidental before the 8th semiquaver in the R.H., which requires it to be interpreted as e3. This kind of distortion of a regular, virtuoso sequence is unimaginable. Therefore, the reviser of GE was certainly right to add a  before this note. However, EE did not correct this oversight, so typical of Chopin. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors repeated in EE

b. 339

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

..

In A and in the majority of the editions the  restoring e2 is missing. Chopin's mistake, patent in this harmonic context, and typical of him, is proven by the  in the piano part of AsI and by the orchestral part – a respective accidental is in the part of the first clarinet. A flat was added only in GE3.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors of A

b. 340

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

b1-d2 in A & FESB

b1-d2 in AsI & GE (→FE,EE)

..

The version of A featuring b1 must be Chopin's mistake, which in this case could be explained by score-like thinking – in the voice of the 2nd clarinet implementing the bottom line of the semiquavers, a  restoring b is unnecessary. The accidental, present in AsI, was then added already in the stage of proofreading GE (→FE,EE), perhaps by Chopin. It is the engraver of FESB that is to blame for the absence of this accidental in this edition.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of GE ,