Issues : Errors of FC
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next »
b. 63-64
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor
..
The shorter slur of FC (→GE) resulted from inattention – most probably of the copyist, or perhaps of Chopin in [A] – who did not write the ending of the slur in a new line. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of FC |
|||
b. 67-68
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor
..
The hairpin could have been added by Chopin while proofreading FE or overlooked by the copyist in FC. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Errors of FC |
|||
b. 89
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor
..
A comparison with analogous bar 73 suggests that the version of FC (→GE) is erroneous. It is likely that Fontana did not notice both c1 notes in the chords due to inaccurate notation – in Chopin's autographs, it can sometimes be difficult to determine the presence of notes on ledger lines in the middle of chords. A correction to FC (in print or of the basis) cannot be ruled out either. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Errors of FC |
|||
b. 113-115
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor
..
In FE (→EE) there are no arpeggios, which is a patent mistake, as is the absence of one of them in FC (at the beginning of bar 114). The defect of the copy was corrected in GE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Errors of FC |
|||
b. 115
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor
..
The missing accent in FC could be an oversight by the copyist – cf. analogous bar 19. Therefore, in the main text we include the accent of FE (→EE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of FC |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next »