Issues : Errors in FE
|
b. 78
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
The missing mordent in FE (→EE) must be a mistake of the engraver. In the main text we add a category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration |
||||||
|
b. 78
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
FE2 overlooked the quaver flag next to the third at the end of the bar. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
||||||
|
b. 80
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
FE2 overlooked the semiquaver beam, as a result of which g2 looks like a quaver. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
||||||
|
b. 84-85
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
The reason for the omission of the tie of d by FE (→EE) could have been the deletions of A1 at the beginning of b. 85. The fragment of the slur falling on that bar was deleted, and Chopin did not repeat that fragment on the rewritten – on a staff below – 1st beat of the bar. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||
|
b. 85
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
The missing staccato dot in FE (→EE) may be a result of its placement in A1: the mark is very distinct yet placed quite high above the stave and inaccurately over the 1st quaver. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
in 
] suggested by the editors
2, as the top note. Chopin would often omit such marks and, according to us, such an inaccuracy is much more likely here than a 'default' use of c
