Issues : Errors in EE
b. 45-46
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
It is uncertain whether Chopin meant the accents over the B1-B and B-b octaves to be long or short, since despite a strictly analogous situation, in A the marks differ in length. In the main text we suggest long accents, since the accent of A in b. 46 can be considered long – it is also the accent over e2 in the R.H. that is shorter than its counterpart in b. 45. The version of A, when interpreted literally, and the short accents of GE1 (→FE,GE2→FESB) can be, however, regarded as equivalent variants. In the latter version, the difference between the L.H. accents (short) and the R.H. accents (long) constitutes a detail corresponding to the difference between the length of the accentuated L.H. () and R.H. () notes as well as to the difference between the liveliness and nature of the L.H. motifs and the R.H. top voice. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||||||||
b. 63
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
Starting from the f-c1-a1 chord, in EE the L.H. part is written down on the bottom stave in a treble clef. The clef was not cancelled until the very end of the bar, which is a patent oversight. We reproduce this notation in the graphic transcription (version "transcript"). In the content transcription (version "edited text"), we adjust the arrangement of EE to the remaining sources, which do not include clef changes. category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , Errors resulting from corrections |
||||||||||||||
b. 108
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
Contrary to the situation in b. 103, in A (→GE→FESB) there is no cautionary to e2. A flat was added in FE, perhaps at Chopin's request, whereas in EE1 a was inserted here, raising e2 to e2. This version, possible in itself, must be erroneous, which is proven by – aside from the compliant version of the remaining sources – the comparison with analogous b. 104, 120 and 124. This erroneous revision (or maybe simply a mistake) was corrected only just in EE3, where the was changed to a . category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , Cautionary accidentals , FE revisions |
||||||||||||||
b. 255
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
As far as the naturals raising e to e in the 2nd half of bar 255 are concerned, in A Chopin was satisfied with accidentals to the L.H. chord (e1) and the 3rd demisemiquaver (e3). The remaining 3 naturals necessary later in the passage were added by GE (→FE,EE). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , GE revisions , Accidental below/above the note , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||||||||
b. 273
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The second note in the L.H. part in AsI, A (→GE→FE) and EE3 is a dotted quaver, as a result of which the bar is a semiquaver too short. In the full, orchestral version of this tutti, the cello (and bassoon) phrase starts from the beginning of the bar with a dotted crotchet, which could have suggested to Chopin that it was also in the version for one piano, after shifting the beginning to the 2nd quaver, that the new value should be dotted. The mistake, easy to detect, was noticed and corrected only by FESB. By contrast, in EE1 (→EE2) the dot prolonging this note was left out – it could have been a failed attempt at correcting this mistake. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , Rhythmic errors , Errors of A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Revisions in FESB |