|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
It is impossible to state whether the omission of the dynamic marking in GE was intentional without [AG]. Due to the above reason, in the main text we include mezza voce from AF (→FE→EE) in a variant form. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: No initial dynamic marking |
||||||||
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
AI is devoid of tempo markings. Generally, there are barely 3 verbal indications in the entire AI: The crossings-out visible in AF over the beginning of the piece prove that Chopin was looking for the best indication of its tempo and character, just like in both previous Mazurkas. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , Chopin's hesitations , Deletions in A |
||||||||
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
There is no accent in AI, since Chopin at some point decided not to finish this manuscript, e.g. in b. 1-15, there are no accents (out of a few ones) or staccato dots (see the description of AI). The short accent in EE is an inaccuracy resulting from the ignorance of the difference in meaning between the Chopinesque short and long accents. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies |
||||||||
|
b. 2
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The missing accent in GE must be the engraver's or Chopin's inadvertence, since in all similar situations, the syncopated crotchet beginning a motif is provided with an accent. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies |
||||||||
|
b. 2-4
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
AI is lacking in the sharps restoring f category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors of A |
in b. 17 and 89 and 
in b. 191; therefore, Chopin apparently abandoned writing more detailed performance indications when it turned out that this autograph would not be a Stichvorlage. Due to the above reason, both here and hereinafter we generally indicate the absence of indications in 
2 in b. 2 and f