mUltimate Chopin

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

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

Ornaments

b. 20

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

Arpeggio sign on 3rd beat in FC (→GE)

No sign in FE (→EE)
..

It is difficult to say whether Chopin wanted the last chord in this bar to be performed arpeggio or not. Both in this bar and in analogous bar 116 only one of the authentic sources contains an arpeggio mark; however, it is a different source in each of these places – in this case it is present in FC, whereas in the other – in FE. In either case, it is both the absence of the mark (oversight) and its presence (mistake 'out of momentum') that could be a mistake. In the main text we suggest a version without an arpeggio, since in a few other places in the Mazurka it seems that in Chopin's eyes the presence of an arpeggio depended on the chord span (cf., e.g. bars 21-28, arpeggios only to the tenth chords, or bars 70-72, arpeggio only to the less convenient tenth chord on white keys).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors of FC

b. 23-25

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

Arpeggio sign in b. 23 in FC (→GE1)

Arpeggio sign in b. 25 in FE (→EE)

2 arpeggio signs in GE2
..

The missing arpeggio marks in bars 23 and 25 must have resulted from oversights by the engraver of FE and the copyist, respectively. In the main text we give marks in both bars, which almost certainly corresponds to the notation of [A]. A similar addition was introduced in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors of FC

b. 39

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

 in FC (→GE)

in FE (→EE)
..

Here and in bar 55 we give in the main text a non-slashed grace note after FE, which seem more reliable in this case. It is true that French editions included inaccuracies in grace notes, but Fontana would very often change non-slashed grace notes to slashed ones (cf. the description of FC in the Preludes, Op. 28). This situation occurs twice in the Mazurka, and in both places FE feature a , although almost all the remaining grace notes in entire opus 30 are reproduced there as  (except bar 80). According to us, it guarantees the authenticity of this notation. As a matter of fact, the notation is probably of no significant importance in practical terms, since the grace note merely indicates that the trill is supposed to begin from the main note. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Notation of grace notes , Non-slashed grace notes , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 55

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

 in FC (→GE)

in FE (→EE)
..

In the main text we give the grace note after FE, which seems more reliable in this case – see bar 39.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 80

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

in FC (→GE)

in FE (→EE)
..

We reproduce the grace note in the version of the principal source, that is FC. It certainly corresponds to the performance intended by Chopin, regardless of the kind of notation he used, since he often did not pay great attention to the notation of grace notes, particularly in such obvious situations.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE