Issues : Authentic corrections of GE
|
b. 35-36
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
In A the staccato markings over the semiquavers are evidently represented by dots and clearly differ from, e.g. the wedges at the beginning of b. 35 or b. 39. According to us, the wedges in GE (→FE,EE) were an arbitrary decision of the engraver, who blithely approached the Chopinesque staccato markings on a number of occasions – cf., e.g. b. 10. By contrast, adding marks on the 4th beat of the bar, although without effect on performance – in both cases the marks serve as an example and should be propagated to all semiquavers in these bars – seems to be justified and may have come from Chopin (see also the note on b. 39-40). However, we believe that these two issues can be considered independently, hence in the main text we give dots (after A) in the entire 2nd half of the bar (after GE1). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE , Wedges |
||||||||
|
b. 37-38
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The missing ties to g1 in these bars could be easily considered oversights of the engraver of GE (→FE,EE), particularly since they are poorly visible in A. However, 4 bars later, in an analogous phrase, the respective ties to c2 are present neither in the editions nor in A, which makes us consider possible Chopinesque corrections to the discussed bars in GE1. According to us, it is also highly likely that even if the ties were overlooked, Chopin accepted repeated g1, resulting in an ability to shape more dynamic nuances in this fragment, of a clearly agitato nature. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||||
|
b. 39-40
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
In the main text we include the staccato marks on the 4th beat of the bar, added in GE (→FE,EE,FESB). It is noteworthy that in A Chopin added the staccato indication after eight semiquavers, which suggests that he considered that the 4th beat of b. 39 (and most probably of b. 35 too), identical to the third one, would naturally "inherit" the articulation markings of the preceding one. Therefore, although the authenticity of the very marks is not entirely certain, the authenticity of the articulation they indicate absolutely is. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||||
|
b. 41
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE |
||||||||
|
b. 55-57
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
In the main text we do not include the fingering added by GE2 (→GE3,FESB) due to its questionable authenticity. It is particularly the use of the 5th and 4th fingers in the 2nd figure in b. 56 and the 1st figure in b. 57 that is dubious – Chopin would repeat the 5th finger in similar contexts, e.g. in the Polonaise in E category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of GE |
added in 
, Op. 22,