|
b. 208
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The authenticity of the fingering of GE2 cannot be entirely ruled out; however, a few combinations contrary to the Chopinesque fingering confirmed by other pieces are an argument against this possibility (see bars 55-58). In the case of the digits added in this variation, it is not the digits themselves but the selection of notes that are provided with them that could be questioned – the use of the 1-2 fingering combination on all dyads is as obvious as the use of the 5th finger on the even, top semiquavers, hence it is surprising that they were treated differently. The same objection could be raised in the second place in which the fingering was added – in bar 230. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 208-227
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
In the main text we reproduce the non-standard beaming of A. It was the engraver of GE1 that applied the typical, four-semiquaver beams to make his work easier – half as many elements to be engraved – which was then adopted by the other editions. This applies to the entire Variation IV. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 209-221
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
In the main text we add a cautionary category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||
|
b. 211-222
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
In the main text we add cautionary flats to e category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||
|
b. 213
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
In A both the category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors of A |
to g1 in bar 209 and analog. (213, 217 and 221).
1 in bars 211, 214, 219 and 222 (in the latter also in an alternative version, to the 5th semiquaver).