Issues : Omissions to cancel alteration
b. 311
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
In A the restoring e2 is missing, which is a patent mistake – cf. bars 278 and 286. The accidental is present in AsI; it was also added in GE1 and repeated in the remaining editions. In the main text we also add a cautionary to e1. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors of A |
||||||
b. 319
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The pitch of the middle note in the penultimate triplet (in both bars) raised doubts of many later editors of Chopin's works. In fact, there are many arguments that make one consider an oversight of the restoring d2(1) to be likely. However, as the literal interpretation of the text results in a version that perfectly fits into the Chopinesque style, in the main text we leave the source version. category imprint: Editorial revisions; Source & stylistic information issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors of A |
||||||
b. 320
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The sources do not include an accidental over the mordent. In this harmonic context, the use of b is obvious, hence in the main text we add a over the ornament. Chopin hardly ever put accidentals over trills or mordents in such situations, generally leaving the task of finding the right sound of the auxiliary note to the performer's imagination. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions |
||||||
b. 325
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The pitch of the 2nd semiquaver in the 5th triplet is questionable – when interpreted literally, it is an e3; however, in all analogous places a respective note is placed a fifth (perfect) lower than the previous one, in this case e3, which suggests Chopin's possible mistake. In uneven triplets, the 2nd and 3rd semiquavers melodically combine with the next triplet, which Chopin carefully marked with R.H. slurs; however, this does not determine their harmonic affiliation. The latter is determined by the L.H. sequence (with different slurs!), consisting of D-T sequences filling two subsequent quavers, which, in turn, is clearly signalled by the bass voice beams. If we also take into account Chopin's tendency to forget about previous alterations (in this case it is really far – this is the only bar within bars 321-329 in which the 1st semiquaver is altered), an accidental oversight of a restoring e3 seems very likely. Therefore, the absence of a to the unquestionable e3 in the next triplet belongs to Chopin's typical inaccuracies – it is a note belonging to the current chord (A major) and was marked a semiquaver earlier in the L.H. part. Taking into consideration the above, in the main text we suggest adding accidentals so that the discussed fragment of the progression does not deviate from the binding scheme. In AsI the 5th triplet in the bar is presented in the initial form (see also bar 328), in which the problematic note is absent. The introduction of a change in this place is an argument for Chopin's mistake in A, since corrections narrow down the attention field, which is conducive to errors. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors resulting from corrections , Errors of A , Main-line changes |
||||||
b. 339
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
In A and in the majority of the editions the restoring e2 is missing. Chopin's mistake, patent in this harmonic context, and typical of him, is proven by the in the piano part of AsI and by the orchestral part – a respective accidental is in the part of the first clarinet. A flat was added only in GE3. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors of A |