mUltimate Chopin

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

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors of FC

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. 48

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

Quaver & quaver rest in FC (contextual interpretation→GE1) & FE (→EE)

Dotted quaver & semiquaver rest in GE2
..

In FC the last L.H. f1 note is a dotted quaver, as a result of which the bar includes one semiquaver too many. The mistake was corrected in GE1 to a version that is also in FE (→EE); therefore, we give it in the main text. The GE2 version is an alternative revision of the erroneous FC notation, not devoid of logic with respect to the R.H. rhythm, but almost certainly inauthentic.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Errors of FC

b. 53-54

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

g1 tied in b. 52-53 in FC (→GE)

g1 tied in b. 52-54 in FE (→EE)
..

The missing tie to g1 to bar 54 in FC (→GE) is almost certainly Fontana's mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of FC

b. 54-62

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

No slurs in b. 57 & 62 in FC

No slurs in b. 54 & 56-57 in FE

No slur in b. 57 in EE

No slur in b. 62 in GE

All slurs complemented by the editors
..

In bars 54, 56-57 and 62 particular sources do not include some of the slurs linking the semiquaver to the chord. A comparison of the versions suggests that both in FC and FE at least one slur present in [A] was left out. On the other hand, both in EE and GE the texts of the bases were revised by adding slurs, yet none of them did it consistently.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Errors of FC