|
b. 100
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 4, Mazurka in B♭ minor
..
The accent that can be seen under the dotted quaver in A has more features characteristic for a long accent. The corresponding mark in GE1 looks like an ordinary short accent, yet due to awkward horizontal planning of the notes in the bar it almost reaches the semiquaver, so in FE it was interpreted as a long one. In EE and GE2 (→GE3) the accents used were definitely short ones. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
|||||||
|
b. 100
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 4, Mazurka in B♭ minor
..
The staccato sign here is in the form of a short thin line, differing from the usual, point-like dots. A comparison with analogous places in the text (bars 14, 38 and similar ones) suggests inaccurate notation of A (uncontrolled hand movement). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness issues: Wedges |
|||||||
|
b. 100-102
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 4, Mazurka in B♭ minor
..
The size of the accents on the 3rd beat of bars 100 and 102 is much larger in A than typical short accents. However, their shape is not the one typical for long accents. A comparison with earlier appearances of that phrase suggests that those accents should be considered short ones, and this is how they were interpreted in GE (→FE→EE). category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness issues: Long accents |
|||||||
|
b. 100-102
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 4, Mazurka in B♭ minor
..
We consider the absence of staccato dots under the bass notes A (→GE1→FE→EE) to be Chopin's oversight. These dots were already added in GE2 (→GE3). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||||
|
b. 101-104
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 4, Mazurka in B♭ minor
..
In GE1 (→FE→EE), the dashes defining the extent of the crescendo were omitted, which is surely a mistake. They were added back in GE2 (→GE3). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
