|
b. 25-28
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The range of the small slurs under the groups of grace notes differs in A; however, they must be accidental inaccuracies, getting bigger as similar marks repeat themselves. The first 4 slurs prove that Chopin almost certainly meant slurs reaching the respective main notes, and this is the interpretation we adopt to the main text. In the editions, the slurs encompassed only the grace notes; moreover, GE1 (→GE2) overlooked the second slur in b. 26 (which was added in the remaining editions). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , FE revisions |
||||||||||||
|
b. 25
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
It seems unlikely that Chopin would have removed from FE1 the second part of the indication on purpose, although it is actually completely unnecessary in this context – due to its position, ben marcato can concern only the topmost R.H. notes. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
||||||||||||
|
b. 25
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The accents in A are shorter than the ones over the bass notes in this bar, but the difference is so insignificant that it is uncertain which marks Chopin meant here. The absence of marks in both impressions of FE is either an oversight or a revision – the latter seems more likely, especially in the case of FESB, which was based on GE2, during the final period of its presence on the market, hence when the plates must have already been as worn out as evidenced by the copy presented in our system. Upon seeing the very clear outlines of the removed elements, they could have assumed that the accents over d1 were the remaining elements of the initial, misplaced marks and that it is only the accents over the bass notes that should stay. Anyways, a possible change introduced by Chopin while proofreading FE1 seems less likely than one of the above possibilities. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Errors in FE |
||||||||||||
|
b. 25-27
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The length of the five accents over each subsequent bass note differs in A – they get shorter with each note; however, it is an inaccuracy of notation, since it is only the last accent that could be considered short (but in a different context). In GE1 (→GE2,FE) the accents are not homogeneous either, but it is most probably also due to graphical reasons – the shortest accent, over e category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions |
||||||||||||
|
b. 26
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
In GE1 this note was being corrected during the printing process, which is evidenced by the visible – particularly in GE2 – traces of removal of the notehead of g3. Nevertheless, it is uncertain whether the correction was ordered by Chopin – it could have been performed by the reviser – he could have considered the notation of A a mistake. It is also likely that the initially printed g3 was devoid of a ledger line (such mistakes were quite frequent), and the reviser, without consulting the basis, considered the notehead to have been placed too high. Therefore, the authenticity of the version featuring f3 is uncertain; moreover, the fact that g3 was reintroduced into FE1 – undoubtedly by Chopin – proves that the composer eventually opted for g3, even if he were temporarily considering f3. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Chopin's hesitations , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of GE |
, was squeezed in between the notes of the top voice and could not have been longer. The accents in 
