



b. 156
|
composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major
..
The absence of the marks in GE and EE must be due to oversight, partially caused by the FE layout, in which the wedge was placed very close to the dashes marking the range of the octave sign. A similar situation occurred in bar 151. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE , Errors in GE |
||||||
b. 160
|
composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major
..
The minor traces of corrections performed in print, visible in FE, suggest that a category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||
b. 161-163
|
composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major
..
The missing 3 marks in GE are most probably due to oversight. On the other hand, the change of the FE wedges (→EE) to staccato dots resulted from general revision carried out by the publisher, which we summarise in separate notes (on this page in bar 145). In the main text in bar 162 we alternatively suggest supplementing the FE version (→EE) with a wedge over the 4th quaver. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||
b. 165
|
composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major category imprint: Interpretations within context issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE |
||||||
b. 166
|
composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major
..
In the case of such a small element as an augmentation dot, put in an atypical place, a double, independent oversight cannot be completely ruled out. However, it seems more likely that Chopin added this dot in the last stage of proofreading FE, after the copies serving as the bases for GE and EE had been sent. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE , Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE |