b. 3
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt II
..
The authenticity of the fingering added in FEH is uncertain – see the characterization of that source. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||||||
b. 3-5
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
The comparison of all analogous places (b. 3-5, 27-29 and 59-61) as well as of the similar motifs in b. 7, 11 and analog. leads to the following conclusions:
We provide the main text with the version of FE2, which can also be considered a contextual interpretation of GE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Inaccuracies in A |
|||||||||||||||
b. 3-4
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
It is difficult to say whether the missing tie of G is an actual variation of the text (original?), an oversight or an element overlooked as a result of abandoning the work on this manuscript. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||||||
b. 3-4
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The version with tied c2, coming probably from [AG] (→GE), is undoubtedly later, hence we give it directly in the main text. Admittedly, Chopinesque proofreading of FE took place even later, yet the fact that a tie was not added here does not allow us to draw conclusions that Chopin returned to the original concept, since the difference could have been of less importance to the composer, hence he could have forgotten it while proofreading FE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
|||||||||||||||
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we add a cautionary before b1. category imprint: Editorial revisions |