|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor
..
In all sources the number of mazurkas in the opus is expressed in full word – Quatre Mazurkas, yet in the main text we provide a digit, understandable regardless of the language. What is more, it cannot be excluded that in the autograph (lost) Chopin wrote a digit, as he did in the preserved autographs of opuses 24 and 50, which the French publisher did not respect in opus 24, replacing the digit with a word. In FC the title contains a mistake – Quatre Mazurka. The title having been expanded in EE was an arbitrary decision of the publisher – all opuses of Chopinesque Mazurkas were named like that. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Errors of FC |
||||||||
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor
..
The absence of dedication in FC (→GE) suggests that Chopin decided to dedicate the Mazurkas to the Duchess of Württemberg already after having sent the copy to Leipzig; afterwards, he no longer dealt with the issue. The Duchess came to Paris the year the Mazurkas were published (1837), hence the decision concerning the dedication could have appeared relatively late in the publishing process. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Dedications |
||||||||
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor
..
It is unclear how the difference in the placement of the initial category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Centrally placed marks |
||||||||
|
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor
..
It is uncertain whether the FC accent is to be interpreted as short or long. The latter, which we adopted, is supported by the length of the accented note, the kujawiak-like nature of the Mazurka and a similar (although slightly longer) accent in the Scherzo in B category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
||||||||
|
b. 2-12
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor
..
The staccato dots in bars 2-4 and 10-12 were most probably added by Chopin in the stage of proofreading FE (→EE); other possibilities are them having been entered by Chopin into [A] after FC had already been finished, or them having been overlooked by Fontana, or a combination of two or even three of these factors. The absence of marks for the R.H. in bar 2 in FE (→EE) must be considered Chopin's inadvertence or a mistake by the engraver of FE. In the main text we include the dots of FE together with the two overlooked ones in bar 2. This version is also in GE2, perhaps on the basis of FE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
in the anacrusis in 
minor, Op. 31, 
