Issues : EE revisions
|
b. 18-29
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
As it was described in the note concerning b. 16-17, due to the notation of the harmonic legato in the L.H. part, the engraver of GE1-2 misunderstood the rhythm; consequently, the notation became more or less compliant with A only after corrections to a printed version. Generally, the dotted crotchets are separated from the minims; however, wherever there are no small rhythmic values in the R.H., the gaps are very small, while in the 2nd half of b. 18 the notes almost touch each other. Consequently, it contributed to the clearly erroneous versions of notation of FE and EE: category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 25
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The version of GE1 (→GE2,EE), featuring e category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE , FE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
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
..
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 |
, is almost certainly erroneous – there are no traces of removal of the 
, despite the numerous traces of corrections visible in this and adjacent bars (very clear in 
to e
