|
b. 88-89
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
In A1 one can see that the slur over the R.H. part in b. 88 was combined with the slur in b. 89-90, written separately (led further on a new line). category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A |
||||||||
|
b. 89
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
In the main text we suggest adding the pedalling after analogous b. 93. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 89-93
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
In the main text we include the staccato dot present in GE1 at the beginning of b. 89 and 93. Such an articulation – a dot and a slur – refers to the original version of this motif in b. 1 and analog. The absence of the dot in b. 89 must be an oversight of the engraver of GE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 89-93
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
In b. 89 and 93 in the main text we give the slurs of GE, which, along with the staccato dots and the G crotchets, offer an accurate picture of the articulation of the beginnings of these motifs. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 90-91
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
In A1 both the ending of the L.H. slur in b. 90 and the starting point of the slur in b. 91 are probably inaccurate, which is indicated by a comparison with GE and analogous b. 94 and 99 in the very A1. The engraver of FE, misled by the slur in b. 90, combined both slurs in one, which does not result from the notation of A1 and certainly does not correspond to Chopin's intention. This erroneous version was repeated in EE. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A |
