![](/build/images/logo_left-en.png)
![](/build/images/pl-button.5cab5de0.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button.d3d09842.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button-en.5098433b.png)
Issues : Inaccuracies in FE
b. 5-6
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
In A, the short category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||||||||
b. 11
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FESB |
||||||||||||||
b. 18-29
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
As it was described in the note concerning b. 16-17, due to the notation of the harmonic legato in the L.H. part, the engraver of GE1 misunderstood the rhythm; consequently, the notation became more or less compliant with A only after corrections to a printed version. Generally, the dotted crotchets are separated from the minims; however, wherever there are no small rhythmic values in the R.H., the gaps are very small, while in the 2nd half of b. 18 the notes almost touch each other. Consequently, it contributed to the clearly erroneous versions of notation of FE and EE1:
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||||||||
b. 27
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
It was first the engraver of GE and then the engravers of the subsequent editions who had problems interpreting the category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins |
||||||||||||||
b. 28-29
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
Due to the seemingly insignificant shifts of the category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies |