mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 1

composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor

in the anacrusis in FC (→GE)

in bar 1 in FE (→EE)
..

It is unclear how the difference in the placement of the initial  indication occurred. Perhaps it is just a difference in the interpretation of a mark written between the upbeat and the beginning of bar 1 – cf., e.g. the autograph of the Prelude in A, Op. 28 No. 7. In the main text we put the mark in accordance with the principal source, that is FC.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Centrally placed marks

b. 1

composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor

Long accent in FC, contextual interpretation

Short accent in FE (→EE) & GE
..

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 minor, Op. 31, bar 18, in which Chopin's preserved autograph contains a clear long accent. We reproduce the GE mark as a short accent, since marks of similar length are most common in GE (in entire opus 30), and nothing indicates that they were treated as something unusual.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 1

composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor

in FC (→GE)

legato in FE (→EE)

Our variant suggestion
..

It is difficult to say how the difference in the indications at the beginning of the piece occurred. As legato was not being removed in FC, it was probably added by Chopin in the stage of proofreading FE or to the basis thereof. One of these scenarios presented an opportunity for a possible removal of , which in FC seems to have been written in Fontana's hand. Due to the above, in the main text we suggest it in a variant form (in brackets). See also bars 13 and 33.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: No initial dynamic marking , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 1

composition: Op. 30 No. 2, Mazurka in B minor

Vivace in FC (→GE)

Allegretto in FE (→EE)
..

Vivace was entered into FC by Chopin after crossing out Allegretto. The composer could have been considering a more pronounced indication suggesting the different nature of this Mazurka with respect to the first and fourth ones, described as Allegretto non tanto and Allegretto, respectively. Cf. changes to the tempo/character indications in the autograph of the Preludes, Op. 28.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Changes of tempo markings

b. 1-3

composition: Op. 30 No. 2, Mazurka in B minor

Slurs over triplets in FC (→GE)

No slurs in FE (→EE)
..

In bars 1 and 3, in the main text we omit the slurs present in FC (→GE), being part of the triplet marking – cf. General Editorial Principles, p. 16. They are absent in FE, although it seems unlikely that Chopin would have bothered to remove them while proofreading this edition. In subsequent bars, none of the sources includes such slurs. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Triplet slurs