|
b. 26
|
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 figures in bars 22, 24 and 28 and 118, 120 and 122. In the entire Mazurka, this place appears 8 times, out of which six have such markings. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 27
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor
..
FC has a wedge under F category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 27
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 28
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor
..
Chopin could have added to [A] the articulation markings in the L.H. part after FE had already been engraved. The absence of the staccato dot in GE is most probably an oversight by the engraver. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 31
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor
..
Crotchets at the beginning of the bar probably resulted from a correction in print, most probably from the FC version. The latter is, however, misleading – one can get the impression that the bar includes 5 crotchets. The two-part writing specifying the rhythm was introduced in GE. The simplified rhythmic notation is accompanied in FE with the pedalling (see the note below), which, consequently, produces a very similar sound effect to the FC version. It proves that Chopin either changed the rhythm notation himself or accepted it through the addition of pedalling. Due to the above, we provide this version in the main text, simpler in terms of notation and more pianistically natural. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Inaccuracies in FC |
, whereas the remaining sources – a staccato dot. In the main text we give a dot, since upon the return of the theme (bar 123), all sources include a dot.
