Issues : Inaccuracies in FESB
b. 11
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FESB |
||||||||
b. 107-108
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
At the end of b. 107, it is uncertain which R.H. voices the slurs of A concern – practically, each combination of two out of three voices is possible. On the basis of a comparison with analogous b. 123, we assume that they concern the two bottom voices. This is how it was interpreted, more or less, in GE (→FE,EE), in which, however, the top slur begins only just over the last semiquaver, while the bottom one reaches d1 and not b1 at the beginning of b. 108. The notation was further distorted in FESB. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FESB |
||||||||
b. 262
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
According to us, the placement of the indication is an example of Chopin using here a convention of writing indications within and not at the beginning of the scope of their validity. Due to the above, in the main text we give preference to the version of GE (→FE1,EE). The version of FESB resulted from the engraver's inaccuracy, and its compliance with A must be accidental, since throughout the entire piece, no features of FESB suggest that this publisher could have had an insight into A. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Centrally placed marks , Inaccuracies in FESB |
||||||||
b. 335-336
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The slurs of AsI are written offhandedly; they signal an intent rather than represent actual marks. This intent were most probably slurs encompassing the entire passage, including the 1st quaver in bar 336. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation , Inaccuracies in FESB |