|
b. 266
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
In the main text we include the arpeggio wavy lines entered into Af. Their absence in A and all the editions seems to be a patent oversight, considering the span of the chords and the arpeggios in the preceding bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of A |
||||||||
|
b. 266
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
As in bar 265, the pedalling marks in the 1st half of the bar are inaccurately aligned in A – the first category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||
|
b. 266
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
Strictly speaking, the R.H. figuration, in which 12 notes fall on one quaver, should be written in hemidemisemiquavers. However, in the main text we keep the version of the sources, since Chopin would write down irregular groups of notes encompassing a dozen or so notes in this way, hence in twice as long rhythmic values, also in other pieces, cf., e.g. the Prelude in D category imprint: Interpretations within context; Source & stylistic information |
||||||||
|
b. 266
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The omitted category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 266
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
There is no reason why d category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Errors in GE |
mark is written as early as under the chord on the 2nd quaver in the bar, while the next 
mark – directly behind it, still before the d
1 crotchet in the top voice. However, as the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quavers in the bar are written very close to each other, one can guess that the inaccurate alignment resulted from lack of space; consequently, in the editions the notation was corrected in accordance with the analogous places and the pianistic sense.
marks seem to be a revision of 
