mUltimate Chopin

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

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FC

b. 21

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

Accent on d2-f2 in FC (→GE)

Accent on a1 in FE (→EE)

Long accent on d2-f2, our alternative suggestion
..

The lack of access to [A] makes it impossible to say whether and which of the source versions corresponds to Chopin's intention. Therefore, we regard them as equal, while in the main text we provide the version of the principal source (FC). Our alternative proposal is an attempt at reproducing the [A] notation, which could have caused the observed discrepancy between the sources.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 31

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

Notation in FC

FE (→EE)

GE
..

Crotchets at the beginning of the bar probably resulted from a correction in print, most probably from the FC version. The latter is, however, misleading – one can get the impression that the bar includes 5 crotchets. The two-part writing specifying the rhythm was introduced in GE. The simplified rhythmic notation is accompanied in FE with the pedalling (see the note below), which, consequently, produces a very similar sound effect to the FC version. It proves that Chopin either changed the rhythm notation himself or accepted it through the addition of pedalling. Due to the above, we provide this version in the main text, simpler in terms of notation and more pianistically natural.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 36-37

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

Separate slurs in FC (→GE)

Continuous slur in FE (→EE)
..

In FC the slur at the end of bar 36 (which ends the line) may suggest that it should be continued, which, however, is not confirmed by the slur in bar 37. We consider the unequivocal beginning of the slur in bar 37 to be reliable. Due to this ambiguity, and also due to the earlier decision concerning the slurring in bars 32-33, in the main text we continue the FE slur. In analogous bars 44-45 all sources feature a continuous slur.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FC , Uncertain slur continuation

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. 43-44

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

Continuous slur in FC & FE (→EE)
..

The separated slurs of GE are a missed interpretation of the incoherent notation of FC, in which the slur at the end of the line (bar 43) does not point to continuation, while the slur in bar 44 does. We consider a continuous slur (as in FE) to be the text of FC.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FC , Uncertain slur continuation