Verbal indications
|
b. 25
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
It seems unlikely that Chopin would have removed from FE1 the second part of the indication on purpose, although it is actually completely unnecessary in this context – due to its position, ben marcato can concern only the topmost R.H. notes. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 28
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
It is difficult to say whether the change of indication introduced by GE (→FE,EE) was a result of the engraver's inattention, revision or even Chopin's proofreading. The change seems too insignificant to bother about, which rather eliminates the last two possibilities. According to us, we can take one other scenario into account, maybe the most likely – the visible traces of corrections in the L.H. part reveal that the parts of both hands were initially misaligned (while planning the L.H., the engraver did not take into consideration the final R.H. quaver). Had leggieriss. been in the area of the correction, the engraver could have then inaccurately reproduced it from memory. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 30-44
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
|||||||||||
|
b. 33
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||
|
b. 35
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The lack of category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FESB |
= 80 in 
in 