|
b. 20
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The staccato dot was repeated neither in the remaining sources nor in any of analogous b. 24, 112 and 116. Therefore, we assume that Chopin forwent this mark, and we do not include it in the main text. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||||
|
b. 21
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we give the unequivocal long accent written in AI and FE. Short accents in the editions must be a result of a misunderstanding of the manuscripts. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||||
|
b. 22-23
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
Just like in b. 18-19 and 20-21, in the main text we give the slur added to the version prepared for print – AF and [AG] (→GE). The slur in FE (→EE) was placed on the side of the noteheads, which made it look like a tie of a. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Errors in FE , Placement of markings , Tie or slur |
||||||||||
|
b. 23
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The missing mark in the discussed bar is most probably Chopin's inadvertence. In the main text we suggest a long accent, in accordance with Chopinesque proofreading in analogous b. 115. The alternative suggestion results from the ambiguous notation of the autographs in similar b. 19 and 111. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Long accents |
||||||||||
|
b. 24
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The missing staccato dot in AF (→FE→EE) must be an oversight of Chopin – in the very AF, dots are present in analogous b. 20 and 116. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in A |
