Issues : Wedges
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
In the main text we give a wedge as the staccato mark over the 1st quaver in the R.H. Wedge is present in both preserved autographs, i.e. Afrag and A1. We do so because the engraver of GE1 reproducing the notation of [A2] inaccurately seems to be more likely than a change of this detail while writing [A2] (an example of such an inaccuracy is FE1, in which dots are present wherever A1 clearly features wedges). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Wedges |
|||||
|
b. 9
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
Taking into account a possibility of an erroneous, simplified interpretation of GE of possible wedges of [A2], in the main text we give a wedge, written here in A1. We consider the staccato dot of Afrag to be a non-final stage of the search for a coherent concept of articulation markings of this and the analogous quavers; in turn, we consider the version of FE1 to be an example of the engraver having misunderstood the Chopinesque wedge. The wedge in FE2 could have been introduced on the basis of a new comparison with A1, although a significant number of oversights and other defects in that edition points to its hasty preparation rather than to careful edition using the manuscript. However, it may be a result of Chopin's sketchy proofreading, particularly if the mark was initially not there at all – see b. 17. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Wedges |
|||||
|
b. 25-33
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major
..
In b. 25 and 33, taking into account the possibility of an inaccurate, simplified interpretation of possible wedges of [A2] by GE, in the main text we give the wedges written in A1. The interpretation of those marks in FE is most probably inaccurate. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Wedges |
