|
b. 8-16
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor
..
The accent in bar 8 entered into FC is undoubtedly a long accent. Therefore, it allows us to consider the less unambiguous accent placed in a similar context in bar 16 to be long too. Both marks were almost certainly added by Chopin. In GE all accents in this Mazurka are more or less of the same length, and we reproduce them as short. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Authentic corrections of FC |
||||||||
|
b. 8-9
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 2, Mazurka in B minor
..
The difference in the position of category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Centrally placed marks |
||||||||
|
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 2, Mazurka in B minor
..
In FE the last R.H. note is a crotchet, as a result of which the bar includes 7 quavers. In the main text we correct this mistake after the FC notation (→GE); this version is also in EE. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Rhythmic errors , Authentic corrections of FC |
||||||||
|
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 2, Mazurka in F minor
..
We add a cautionary category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 8-9
|
composition: Op. 63 No. 2, Mazurka in F minor
..
In As one can see a tie to the c1 minim in bar 8, sustaining it to the grace note in the next bar. Chopin eventually deleted it; however, it proves that he was considering this operation (not found in other pieces) – an unplayed grace note – and that it could have been used as diversification in bars 48-49 in the final version. category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Main-line changes |
in bar 8 in 
before g in the main text. The accidental was also added in