b. 26
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
In spite of its significant size, the mark in A1 is undoubtedly a long accent, which is confirmed by a comparison with GE (based on [A2]) and with the analogous bars. The fact of shifting the mark in FE (→EE) most probably resulted from misinterpretation of its meaning. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||||||||||
b. 27-29
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
According to us, the slur of A1 in b. 27-28, coinciding with the next one on the minim in b. 28, is one of a few inaccuracies of notation of slurs in the sources concerning this Mazurka. The suggested interpretation is based on the assumption that the slurs of A1 generally describe the same performance manner as the slur and the staccato dot used in [A2] (→GE1). In other words, Chopin was certain of the performance concept of that phrase, he was just looking for the best way to write it down. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||||||||
b. 28
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
In the main text we give the staccato dot with which Chopin provided the 1st chord of the bar in [A2] (→GE1). There is a similar situation in b. 4 and 60. The absence of the mark in GE2 must be an oversight. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Errors in GE |
||||||||||||||||
b. 28
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||||||||||
b. 29
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
The only reason for the missing pedalling markings seems to be Chopin's inadvertence in A1 (→FE→EE). See also b. 33. category imprint: Differences between sources |