data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/73ecd/73ecd80c88ad44c39f3711b6bcc33ca9e1021267" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75013/75013441a15e45e6f391d55c49aaf803f3dff8a4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/57140/571405c7057401412640722d57e0f4262876af22" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3075f/3075f31e8b155e01785c3a53896ad205598099cf" alt=""
In EE the flat restoring b2 on the 8th semiquaver was added in print, hence it was absent in the basis delivered from Paris. Therefore, it does not come from Chopin, who almost certainly did not proofread EE. It does not completely rule out the authenticity of this version, since the notation of accidentals is inaccurate in a number of places in the Variations, and an accidental placed too late would not be unusual – cf., e.g. bar 172. On the other hand, the FE version (→GE) actually does not contain a mistake (the
added to b
3 in the main text is formally a cautionary accidental), while the melodic motif constituted by the first 4 semiquavers in the 2nd half of the bar was used two bars earlier, at the beginning of bar 172. Taking into account the above, in the main text we provide a supplemented version of FE (→GE). The EE text can be considered an acceptable variant.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions
issues: EE revisions, Accidentals in different octaves
notation: Pitch