|
b. 153
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||
|
b. 157-160
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The L.H. slurs are almost certainly an improvement introduced in [AG] (→GE). A similar situation can be found in b. 165-168. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
||||||
|
b. 158
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
Both autographs are lacking in the category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors of A , FE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 158-161
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we give the version of AF (→FE→EE), in which a continuous cresc. begins only just in the second half of the eight-bar section. The version of GE, also undoubtedly authentic, can be considered an equal variant. A similar situation can be found in b. 166-169. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations |
||||||
|
b. 159
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In AF both the ending of the slur from the previous bars and the beginning of the new one are written inaccurately, hence it is unclear which notes they are supposed to concern. The ending of the former is similarly inaccurate in GE, which suggests that it was also [AG] that was not precise in this respect. We reproduce the text of both sources the way it was performed in FE (→EE), which seems to be closest to this notation. However, we are convinced that Chopin meant the slur to be divided after the 1st beat of the bar, as in AI or the way both AF and GE have it in analogous b. 167. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccurate slurs in A |
in 
restoring e on the 3rd beat of the bar, which is a patent oversight. The accidental was added in 
