Issues : Errors in GE
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. 35
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The version of GE1 (→EE) must be erroneous – the slightly blurred ledger line in A under d4 is not a notehead. The mistake was corrected in FE1 (→FE2) and GE2 (→GE3,FESB), in the former perhaps at Chopin's request. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||||||
b. 36
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The missing g crotchet on the 4th beat of the bar must be an oversight of the engraver of GE (→FE,EE). This note is a pianistically and sonically natural bridge between the preceding octave sequence and g in the chord at the beginning of the next bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
||||||||||||||
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. 45-46
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
It is uncertain whether Chopin meant the accents over the B1-B and B-b octaves to be long or short, since despite a strictly analogous situation, in A the marks differ in length. In the main text we suggest long accents, since the accent of A in b. 46 can be considered long – it is also the accent over e2 in the R.H. that is shorter than its counterpart in b. 45. The version of A, when interpreted literally, and the short accents of GE1 (→FE,GE2→FESB) can be, however, regarded as equivalent variants. In the latter version, the difference between the L.H. accents (short) and the R.H. accents (long) constitutes a detail corresponding to the difference between the length of the accentuated L.H. () and R.H. () notes as well as to the difference between the liveliness and nature of the L.H. motifs and the R.H. top voice. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , Inaccuracies in A |