Issues : GE revisions
|
b. 1-5
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
In the main text we give 5 long accents placed between the staves, which corresponds to the unequivocal notation of A1. The notation of GE1 is generally compliant with the above, although it is difficult to say conclusively whether they are short or long accents on the basis of GE1 only; anyway, they are slightly longer than the majority of the accents in the middle section of the Mazurka. The version of the remaining editions, with short accents over the top stave, must be a result of routine revision: the engravers of FE and GE2 reproduced the marks in the same manner, yet independently. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Placement of markings , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 2-6
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
The pedalling markings in b. 2, 4 and 6, added by Chopin in [A2] or in the proofreading of GE1, were most probably reproduced inaccurately, since it is difficult to assume that the pedal should be released differently in b. 2 and 4. Therefore, in the main text we suggest an averaged notation, although in both cases the pedal could actually be held throughout the entire bar. Consequently, the change introduced in GE2 is justified in this case. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations issues: GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 20-25
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
In b. 20 and 25, GE included upper voice rests on the 1st beat of the bar. Formally necessary, such rests often do not provide any useful piece of information in piano music notation, hence they were not used by Chopin. Therefore, it is highly likely that their presence in GE is a result of a revision. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 29
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
Both accents in A1 are undoubtedly long accents, which was not reproduced in FE (→EE). In GE1 it is only the mark in the L.H. that can be considered a long accent; however, according to us, a shorter accent in the R.H. is almost certainly an inaccuracy of notation, even if it was somehow justified in the notation of [A2]. GE2 unified the accents and considered the longer mark in the L.H. to be inaccurate. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 61-62
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 2, Mazurka in A♭ major
..
Both the absence of a slur next to the grace note in b. 61 and reproducing the slur in b. 62 as a conventional mark, combining the grace note with the top (g category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions |
1) and not bottom (c1) note of the quaver, must be a mistake and inaccuracy of 
.