Issues : Errors in FE
|
b. 12-36
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
According to us, prolonging the b minim with a dot in b. 12 and 36 is not musically justified due to the transfer of that element an octave higher in the last chord and due to the absence of a direct continuation of the tenor sound plane. It is most probably a revision provoked by the two-part notation of the G-b tenth in A1 (→FE→EE), which makes an impression of being metrically incomplete (in GE Chopin already used the one-part notation to write the tenth). Similar differences also appear in analogous b. 68. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 36
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 45-48
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
The version of FE2 is almost certainly erroneous, since it overlooked the ending of the slur on a new line. According to us, the remaining two versions of the slurring – along with their corresponding variants in b. 49-53 – may be considered equal, since their authenticity does not give rise to any objections; moreover, both are supported by certain musical arguments (cf. b. 87-91). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 54
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
The missing L.H. slur in FE must be an oversight of the engraver. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
||||||||
|
b. 54
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
The rhythmic notation of the 1st beat of the bar in FE2 is completely erroneous: both the stem and the quaver beam of the upper voice on the 1st beat of the bar were overlooked, as a result of which the e quaver looks like a crotchet. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
