Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
b. 338
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The missing hairpin in the editions is probably an oversight by the engraver of GE1. He could have also assumed that there is too little space for this mark over the slur – cf. the previous bar, in which both marks written by Chopin between the R.H. voices were placed in the editions over the top voice. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
||||||||
b. 340
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The omission of the hairpin in GE (→FE,EE) must have been a decision of the engraver of GE1, who considered the Chopinesque combination of a and cresc. an unnecessary complication. The same in bar 342. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 342
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 342
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
Wedges instead of staccato dots almost certainly resulted from an ad hoc revision of the engraver of GE1, who unified these marks in the entire finale of the Variations. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Wedges |
||||||||
b. 343-347
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The version of AsI is the initial version of the markings, in this bar enhanced by Chopin, but in analogous bars used also in the published version. The change of accent type is a typical arbitrary decision of EE – a similar situation is to be found in bar 347. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |