Issues : EE revisions
|
b. 45-46
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
It is uncertain whether Chopin meant the accents over the B category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 46
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
According to us, the ending of the slur of A is inaccurate – Chopin did not lead the slur to the last semiquaver to keep the manuscript readable. The slur must concern the R.H. bottom voice, filled with semiquaver triplets, and is supposed to encompass the entire bar, as it was unequivocally marked in b. 45. This is the interpretation we give in the main text. In GE1 and the remaining editions, except GE3, the slur starts from the 2nd triplet, which is an inaccuracy caused by the 1st triplet having been placed on the bottom stave. FE and EE considered the ending of the slur (in GE1 (→GE2) accurately reflecting the notation of A) carelessly engraved, hence it was shortened. The range of the slur of GE3 is correct on both ends, yet the slur also encompasses the R.H. top voice (like the slurs in the remaining editions), which was clearly omitted by Chopin in A. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , FE revisions |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 50
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
We reproduce the notation of A, in which the length of the accents regularly decreases, which may suggest, e.g. that they should be each time milder, considering the calando. Such a graphical notation is to be found in a more complex form in the Polonaise in F minor, WN 12, in the autograph of which we can see in b. 79 a sequence of 6 notes marked diminuendo, provided with increasingly shorter accents. In the case of three accents only, it is, however, uncertain whether Chopin indeed wanted to suggest the pianist a certain performance idea; therefore, in the main text we interpret these marks in a standard manner, as long accents (written down inaccurately). This is how they were reproduced by GE1 (→GE2,FE1). The short accents of FESB and the vertical ones of EE are arbitrary changes, while the omission of the marks in GE3 – a mistake. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 55-61
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
Unlike in b. 16-17 and subsequent, GE arranged the L.H. notes correctly: it is clearly indicated that each of the 4 notes in each half-bar figure should be played separately (only at the beginning of b. 60 the second note – a dotted crotchet – is written too close to the minim, which could raise doubts if considered without the context of this entire fragment). In spite of that, FE combined the dotted crotchet with the minim in two places (at the beginning of b. 60 and at the beginning of b. 55), thus suggesting that they should be performed simultaneously (the same mistake was also committed at the beginning of b. 62). In FESB the L.H. arrangement is greatly inaccurate; however, the defects are due to carelessness, supposedly without influence on the understanding of the rhythmic structure of these bars. The boldest distortion is to be found in EE, in which in all places the dotted crotchets are combined with the preceding minims, which means that they are to be played simultaneously (also in b. 62). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , FE revisions |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 62
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
As in the previous bars, the engraver (reviser?) of EE changed the arrangement of the L.H. notes, as a result of which it seems that the dotted a and b category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE |
1-B
) 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.
