b. 18-19
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor
..
In this case we give priority to the continuous slur of FE (→EE) due to the analogy with bars 26-27, in which all sources have a continuous slur. The version of FC is less reliable, since bar 19 opens a new line of text, and the transition into a new line is often conducive to inaccuracies in slurring. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
b. 18
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor
..
In the main text we give the hairpin entered most probably by Chopin into FC. We consider the top arm to be reliable, corresponding to the range of an analogous mark in bar 26. In GE the mark was led to the c2 quaver ending the bar, which suggests a longer crescendo than the one resulting from the Chopinesque entry. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Authentic corrections of FC |
||||||||
b. 19
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor
..
The easiest explanation for the absence of pedal marks in this bar in FC is the copyist's oversight. However, it is likely that it was Chopin himself that overlooked them in [A] and added them there after FC had already been finished. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors of FC |
||||||||
b. 21
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor
category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
b. 21
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor
..
The hairpin was entered into FC (→GE) by Chopin – cf. the hairpin in the previous bar, which was copied by Fontana from [A]. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Authentic corrections of FC |