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


b. 32

composition: Op. 30 No. 2, Mazurka in B minor

Slur to 2nd beat in FC (→GE1)

Slur to f2 in FE (→EE) & GE2

..

In the main text we give the longer slur of FC (→GE1). This place appears in the authentic sources – FC and FE – 7 times (bars 24, 32, 56 and 64; in bar 64 only in FC), 5 of which have a slur with such an ending.
The version of GE2 is an editorial revision, making this place look like the version of FC in bar 24. A similar situation is to be seen in bars 56 and 64.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Tenuto slurs

b. 32

composition: Op. 30 No. 2, Mazurka in B minor

Accent in FC (→GE)

No mark in FE (→EE)

Our variant suggestion

..

Due to the reasons discussed in bar 24, we regard the version without an accent as equal, while in the main text we suggest a variant solution.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 32-33

composition: Op. 30 No. 2, Mazurka in B minor

Slur from grace note f2 in FC (→GE)

Slur from crotchet f2 in FE (→EE)

..

It is difficult to say how the difference in the slur starting point occurred. The FC slur was copied, it was not corrected. Therefore, it is likely that Chopin extended the slur in the proofreading of or in the basis for FE. We give preference to this version; however, we consider both to be equal.

By including the accent on the 3rd crotchet in bar 32, we get two source versions – an accent and a slur from the next note (FC) or a slur running from the 3rd crotchet in bar 32, not provided with an accent (FE). These versions may indicate very similar performances, but one can find in them various interpretation details.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 38

composition: Op. 30 No. 2, Mazurka in B minor

poco ritenuto in FC (→GE1)

No indication in FE (→EE) & GE2

our variant suggestion

..

The poco ritenuto indication was most probably added to FC by Chopin. If we take into account the fact that there are indications he added both to FC and FE, we can assume that he forwent some of them or at least considered them less important. Due to the above, in the main text we include those that specify one of the possible ways of interpretation, in a variant form (in brackets).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 39-47

composition: Op. 30 No. 2, Mazurka in B minor

..

There is no accidental to the last grace note in bars 39 and 47 in FC, while in FE in bars 39, 45 and 47. The patent oversights, the ones in bars 39 and 47 most probably by Chopin himself, who considered the earlier  to g1 to be sufficient, were corrected in GE (in bar 39 a  was added to FC already by the reviser) and in EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Foreign hand additions in manuscripts , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of FC