|
b. 67-68
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
The interpretation of the mark of GE1, which resembles a long accent but goes beyond the bar line, is not obvious. One can interpret it as a short diminuendo hairpin, leading to category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
|||||||||||
|
b. 67-68
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
Due to the transfer of the slur near the noteheads, the mark in FE (→EE) seems to be a tie of d category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Placement of markings |
|||||||||||
|
b. 68
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
Just like 7 next accents in b. 69-75, the mark in GE1 was added by Chopin in the proofreading or still in [A2]. Its placement must be inaccurate: there are no doubts that it is the 3rd and not the 2nd beat that is to be accented, yet GE2 understood it the other way round (with accent on the 2nd beat). According to us, the size of the mark is also unreliable (cf. the note in b. 60-64), hence in the main text we give a contextual interpretation thereof. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
|||||||||||
|
b. 68
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
In the main text we include the pedalling added by Chopin in [A2] or in the proofreading of GE1. A similar situation can be found in b. 72. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Authentic corrections of GE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 68
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
The second out of three category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of GE |
in 
and corresponding to the 
mark in b. 66. In the main text we give a short accent, introduced by Chopin in 
2. In the main text we preserve the original Chopinesque notation from 
