mUltimate Chopin

Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 88-89

composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major

1 slur in FE (→EE)

2 slurs in GE
..

The lack of a L.H. slur in FE (→EE) is probably an oversight – see the next motif. Therefore we adopt the GE version in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 90

composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major

over R.H. in FE (→EE)

Long accent in GE

 under R.H., our alternative suggestion
..

It is unclear whether the  mark is to be understood as a diminuendo hairpin or as a long accent. Placing the mark over the R.H. part, which limits its impact to this part or to the melodic voice, suggests the latter. The considerable size of the mark in FE could be a side effect of the non-densely packed text in this edition – the mark in [A], in spite of a similar position between a crotchet and a quaver, could have been much shorter, as evidenced by GE. A hairpin would be supported by the presence of  in the 2nd half of the bar – after the octave sequence in the previous bar, played , a diminuendo would provide a natural path to this . In this case, the sense of the mark would be clearer if it were placed between the staves. Therefore, a third alternative interpretation would be a  between the staves.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 91

composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major

No marks in FE (→GE)

2 wedges in EE
..

The missing wedges under two out of 12 quavers (in the R.H. and L.H.) constituting a homogeneous sequence of chords must be considered an oversight. Therefore, in the main text we include the revision introduced by EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions

b. 91-92

composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major

..

In the main text, we omit the cautionary naturals at e in bar 91 and f in bar 92. In FE (→EE) both appear, while in GE only the first one is left.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals

b. 92

composition: Op. 12, Variations in B♭ major

Wedge in FE, probable reading

No marks in GE & EE

2 wedges suggested by the editors
..

In FE there is a poorly visible wedge under the 1st R.H. quaver. Taking into account similar situations in bar 62 and 89, in which Chopin provided with wedges the quavers ending the homogeneous octave sequences, preceding a rest, we consider it likely that there could be a wedge in the discussed place. Therefore, we provide it in the main text while adding a corresponding mark for the L.H. quaver. However, it cannot be ruled out that the poor visibility of the mark is not merely a misprint, but a piece of evidence that the wedge was inaccurately removed in the stage of proofreading. The absence of the mark both in GE and EE suggests that these editions adopted the above interpretation. In the face of Chopin's proofreading, this version can be considered an equal variant.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in EE , Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE