Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
b. 14
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The traces of erasure visible in A reveal that Chopin initially inserted the mark under the bottom stave, more or less there where it is to be found in the editions. It can also be seen that the initial mark was longer, since it reached the first L.H. quaver. The corrected version of the mark was shortened and moved over the first chord. In this form, the mark is to be interpreted as a long accent, which we give in the main text. The engraver of GE (→FE1,EE) moved the mark, which he most certainly considered a diminuendo, under the stave, probably to avoid a contradiction with poco cresc. or simply due to lack of space over the stave (a hairpin on the stave is poorly visible; such a solution is applied only in exceptional cases). category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Long accents , Corrections in A , GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 15
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The shorter hairpin in the editions must have been an arbitrary decision of the engraver; upon seeing a cresc. within a mark, he considered that doubling synonymous indications would be a problematic yet unnecessary complication to the notation. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
||||||||
b. 20
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
Changing the authentic wedge to a dot is an arbitrariness (or a mistake) of the engraver of GE3. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 21
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The change of the accents over g to vertical ones was a typical arbitrary revision of EE – see e.g. both notes on accents in bar 25. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
b. 23
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Revisions in FESB |