Issues : GE revisions
|
b. 18
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 4, Mazurka in B♭ minor
..
In A, the whole-bar pedalling is written. Lack of markings in GE1 (→FE→EE) may be either a result of Chopin's correction (as the comparison with the analogous bars 50 and 112 suggests) or the engraver's omission (as suggested by lack of any traces of deletions and by the omission of pedalling in the following bar 19). In GE2 (→GE3), the markings were added on the basis of A. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 20
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 4, Mazurka in B♭ minor
..
In GE2 (→GE3), an accent was added on the 3rd beat of the bar. That adjustment was based on the authentic sign in the analogous bar 52. In our opinion, that detail does not need to be made uniform. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 20
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 4, Mazurka in B♭ minor
..
Lack of pedalling in A (→GE1→FE→EE) may be the result of Chopin's scattered attention connected with correcting the form of the Mazurka (deletion of the repetition of bars 5-20). Therefore we suggest supplementing the markings in line with analogous bar 52. A similar adjustment was made in GE2 (→GE3). category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 21
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 4, Mazurka in B♭ minor category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 24
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 4, Mazurka in B♭ minor
..
The slur linking the grace note with the main note in A (→GE1) was omitted from FE (→EE) and GE2. In GE3, an arpeggio symbol was added before the grace note. This might have been prompted by the notation of A, as in his later years Chopin used such slurs to mark arpeggios. However, in the Mazurkas he was still using squiggly lines for that purpose. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions |
