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


Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 92

composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major

Wedge in FE, probable reading

No marks in GE & EE

2 wedges suggested by the editors

..

In FE there is a poorly visible wedge under the 1st R.H. quaver. Taking into account similar situations in bar 62 and 89, in which Chopin provided with wedges the quavers ending the homogeneous octave sequences, preceding a rest, we consider it likely that there could be a wedge in the discussed place. Therefore, we provide it in the main text while adding a corresponding mark for the L.H. quaver. However, it cannot be ruled out that the poor visibility of the mark is not merely a misprint, but a piece of evidence that the wedge was inaccurately removed in the stage of proofreading. The absence of the mark both in GE and EE suggests that these editions adopted the above interpretation. In the face of Chopin's proofreading, this version can be considered an equal variant.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in EE , Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 94

composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major

 in FE (→GE,EE)

 suggested by the editors

..

The  hairpin at the beginning of bar 94 in FE (→GE,EE) is almost certainly a typical mistake by the engraver – cf. similar motifs in bars 93-94 and 96-99, particularly the first one in bar 96, which is a variant of the discussed one. This mistake, consisting in reversing the mark as if in a mirror image, can also be found in other pieces by Chopin, cf., e.g. the Nocturne in D, Op. 27 No. 2, bar 6, Scherzo in B minor, Op. 20, bar 306, Etude in C minor, Op. 10 No. 12, bar 53 or Prelude in E, Op. 28 No. 19, bar 52.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in FE , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 121-128

composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major

..

The change of wedges to staccato dots in GE resulted from general revision by this publisher – see the note in bar 7. However, the same change in EE can be puzzling, as EE generally kept the wedges printed in FE. According to us, it is an arbitrary revision inspired by the dot at the beginning of bar 121. The reviser also modified slurs – see the preceding note. See also bar 140.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , GE revisions

b. 125-127

composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major

Markings only in b. 127 in FE (→EE)

No markings in GE

Markings in both bars suggested by editors

..

The absence of markings – dots under the slur – in bar 125 must be considered an oversight, since the chordal motifs in bar 125 and 127 must be performed using the same kind of articulation. Therefore, in the main text we suggest adding respective markings. The easiest explanation for their absence in GE in bar 127 is the engraver's carelessness.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in GE

b. 125-128

composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major

Wedges in FE (→EE)

Staccato dots in GE

..

Most of the wedges present in FE (→EE) were arbitrarily changed to staccato dots in GE – see the note in bar 7. As the change covers all wedges included in GE, we consider the version of this edition to be one variant, on this page encompassing generally 5 marks in bar 121 and 123, 126 and 125 and 128, yet we discuss the first two groups of bars separately due to other source issues – see the notes in bar 121 and 126.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Wedges