Issues : FE revisions
|
b. 2
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
It is difficult to say whether the L.H. top voice rest was added in FE by Chopin or by the engraver/reviser. As it does not appear in any of the eight further repetitions of this bar and is absent in the remaining sources, we do not include it in the main text. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE , FE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 5-6
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
The slurs of Afrag and GE are unequivocal; since such a slur is featured in all analogous bars in GE, we give it – as present in [A2] – in the main text. The slur of FE is clearly erroneous, which was corrected in FE2 and EE, most probably on the basis of comparison with b. 1-2. The slur of A1 is problematic; just like the remaining slurs in the 1st line of the manuscript, it reaches the end of the bar, yet its shape suggests that it is supposed to be led to the beginning of the next bar. It is explicitly confirmed by the fact of ending the slur in b. 11 (on a new line) as well as by the unequivocal slur in b. 25-27, corrected by Chopin. In such a context, we interpret the slur of A1 as reaching the 1st quaver in b. 7. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , FE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation , Tenuto slurs |
|||||||||
|
b. 9
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
On the copy of FE2 presented in mUltimate Chopin, the c1 note seems to be removed from the first quaver in b. 9. Unfortunately, the inability to compare it with another copy – the only catalogued one is in the Viennese Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, which does not share the digitised versions of their collection – does not allow us to check whether it is merely a misprint. If the note was actually removed, it could have been:
See the previous note. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE , FE revisions |
|||||||||
|
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. 21-22
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
There is no tie of g in A1, which must be Chopin's oversight: cf. b. 17-18. The tie was added in FE (→EE), which, however, does not need to point to Chopin's proofreading, since such additions would be routinely introduced by the publishers, sometimes explicitly contrary to Chopin's intention, e.g. in the Mazurka in D Major, Op. 33 No. 3, b. 8-9 and analog. or in the Scherzo in C category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of A , FE revisions |
Minor, Op. 39, b.