mUltimate Chopin

Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major

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

b. 88

composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major

in FE (→EE)

 in GE
..

The change of  to  in GE is probably an arbitrary revision by the publisher or even a mistake. A possible correction by Chopin seems much less likely due to the musically unjustified, excessive contrast with , in force from bar 86 and in bar 88 (the Chopinesque  in bar 92 follows  and constitutes a spectacular and definite ending to the variation – cf. also the dynamics in bars 58-62).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 88

composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major

No separate voices in FE (→GE,EE)

Separate voices suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we replace the Chopinesque notation of the L.H. part (quasi-one-part writing) by regular notation with division into parts.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Different values of chord components

b. 88

composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major

Slur from f1 to c2 in FE

Slur from g1 to c2 in GE & EE

Slur from f1 to b1 suggested by the editors
..

According to us, the ending of the FE slur is inaccurate, as there is no reason for it not to encompass the last note of the phrase – cf. the L.H. slur and the slur in the ending of the theme (bar 58).
Adjusting the slur to the group of semiquavers filling a half of the bar is most probably a routine revision by GE and EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 90

composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major

over R.H. in FE (→EE)

Long accent in GE

 under R.H., our alternative suggestion
..

It is unclear whether the  mark is to be understood as a diminuendo hairpin or as a long accent. Placing the mark over the R.H. part, which limits its impact to this part or to the melodic voice, suggests the latter. The considerable size of the mark in FE could be a side effect of the non-densely packed text in this edition – the mark in [A], in spite of a similar position between a crotchet and a quaver, could have been much shorter, as evidenced by GE. A hairpin would be supported by the presence of  in the 2nd half of the bar – after the octave sequence in the previous bar, played , a diminuendo would provide a natural path to this . In this case, the sense of the mark would be clearer if it were placed between the staves. Therefore, a third alternative interpretation would be a  between the staves.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 91

composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major

No marks in FE (→GE)

2 wedges in EE
..

The missing wedges under two out of 12 quavers (in the R.H. and L.H.) constituting a homogeneous sequence of chords must be considered an oversight. Therefore, in the main text we include the revision introduced by EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions