|
b. 2-3
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
When interpreted literally, the slur of A1 does not reach the beginning of b. 3. A comparison with analogous bars in A1 points to an inaccuracy of Chopin's notation in this place (as well as in b. 6-7). It is also confirmed by the slurring of GE. It seems that the division of the slur of A1 into two parts was caused by temporary ink stoppage in the pen's tip. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Tenuto slurs |
|||||||||||
|
b. 2-16
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
In A1 these bars are provided with consecutive numbers from 1 to 15, which identify a fragment repeated then as b. 58-72. category imprint: Source & stylistic information |
|||||||||||
|
b. 2-6
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
The pedalling markings in b. 2, 4 and 6, added by Chopin in [A2] or in the proofreading of GE1, were most probably reproduced inaccurately, since it is difficult to assume that the pedal should be released differently in b. 2 and 4. Therefore, in the main text we suggest an averaged notation, although in both cases the pedal could actually be held throughout the entire bar. Consequently, the change introduced in GE2 is justified in this case. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations issues: GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 2
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The missing accent in GE must be the engraver's or Chopin's inadvertence, since in all similar situations, the syncopated crotchet beginning a motif is provided with an accent. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||
|
b. 2-4
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
AI is lacking in the sharps restoring f category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors of A |
2 in b. 2 and f