|
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
The missing tie of g1 in FE (→EE) is most probably an oversight, perhaps provoked by the notation of A1, in which the g1-b category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 9-27
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
In A1 these bars are provided with consecutive numbers from 1 to 19, which identify a fragment repeated subsequently as b. 40-58 and 84-102. category imprint: Source & stylistic information |
||||||||
|
b. 9-10
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
Chopin added two staccato dots in [A2] (→GE), probably as a performance model for further similarly shaped bars. In this case, one can rule out a possible Chopinesque proofreading of GE1, since the layout of the pedalling markings already took those bars into consideration. The same applies to the subsequent repetition of those bars, which are not written out in A1 (b. 40-41 and 84-85). category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
||||||||
|
b. 9
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
The arpeggio mark is one of the numerous additions introduced by Chopin probably still in [A2] (→GE): see the previous note. The same applies to b. 40 and 84. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 11-15
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
Chopin could have added the mordents in b. 11 and 15 already in [A2] or only just in the proofreading of GE1 (→GE2). The same applies to b. 46 and 50 and 86 and 90. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Authentic corrections of GE |
1 third is written with the use of one-part writing despite different rhythmic values of both notes. In the main text we give the more accurate notation of 
