|
b. 119-123
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor
..
The missing arpeggios to the tenth chords in bars 119, 121 and 123 are most probably an oversight by the copyist in FC (→GE1), revised in GE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Errors of FC |
|||||||
|
b. 123
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Errors of FC |
|||||||
|
b. 124
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor
..
In the main text we add a staccato dot and a slur in the L.H. part after the markings of FC in analogous bars 22, 24 and 28 and 118, 120 and 122. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||||
|
b. 124-125
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor
..
Both versions of slurring are musically justified – the slur of FC begins together with the new four-bar section, while the slur of FE emphasises the fact that the new section derives from the ending of the preceding phrase. We give the slurs of the principal source. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||
|
b. 125
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor
..
The differing performance markings of FC and FE were independently introduced by Chopin both in the copy and in the stage of proofreading FE (or in the basis for it) – see the note on the filiation of the Mazurkas. In the main text we give the version of the principal source (FC), but the second version may be regarded as an equal option. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of FC |
to the topmost quaver. The patent mistake was corrected in 
