|
b. 172
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
According to us, the dotted rhythm in EE is either an arbitrary revision or a mistake. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||||
|
b. 172
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
In FE the missing category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors repeated in EE |
|||||||
|
b. 172
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
In the main text, we add cautionary naturals before minims e1 in bar 172 and b in bar 176. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||||
|
b. 172-173
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
In the main text we suggest arpeggiating the tenths in these bars, since Chopin probably considered such performance of these figures to be self-explanatory while writing A – he did not write any arpeggio in bars 85-92 and in bars 172-179. However, he added respective marks to [FC] or while proofreading FE1 in bars 85-86 and 89-90, undoubtedly also after the analogous bars. In the discussed bars one can ponder whether Chopin considered tenths to be fully analogous to chords spanning a tenth, in other words whether the aforementioned arpeggios added before the chords may be considered to be applicable also here. According to us, they may, which seems to be indicated by the initial version of the discussed bars visible in A, including the then deleted B category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||||
|
b. 172
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
We add cautionary naturals before C and c1 in the main text. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
1 in 
restoring b1 is almost certainly an oversight, which is proven by the compliant and flawless text of all sources in analogous b. 231 – f
1. The mistake was repeated in 
notes. This suggests that Chopin considered tenths a variant of chords of a harmonic nature, and not of a performing nature.