mUltimate Chopin

Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

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. 43-44

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

 in A1 (→FE1→EE)

No sign in GE

Shorter  in FE2
..

In the main text we include the  hairpin from A1 (→FE1→EE), since it is difficult to assume that Chopin would have removed that mark, determining the direction in which the phrase should develop, on purpose in [A2] (→GE). FE2 reproduced it inaccurately.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 45

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

..

In A1 (→FE) there is no  lowering e1 to e1. It is a result of inattention at the time of performing corrections in this autograph: originally, it was a crotchet featuring e1 alongside the necessary  that was on the 1st beat in the R.H. bottom voice. Chopin did not control the notation of accidentals after he had replaced it with a rest. The sign was added in EE; it is also in GE, which could also be explained by an editorial revision.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Errors of A , Errors repeated in FE

b. 45-48

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

Slur to minim a1 in A1 (→FE1→EE)

Slur beyond bar 48 in GE

Slur to end of bar 46 in FE2
..

The version of FE2 is almost certainly erroneous, since it overlooked the ending of the slur on a new line. According to us, the remaining two versions of the slurring – along with their corresponding variants in b. 49-53 – may be considered equal, since their authenticity does not give rise to any objections; moreover, both are supported by certain musical arguments (cf. b. 87-91). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 48-49

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

Long accent in A1

Short accent in FE (→EE)

  in GE1

 in GE2

  suggested by the editors

Our alternative suggestion
..

In the main text we suggest to reconstruct the version of [A2], which could have been distorted in GE1 due to the transition into a new line (after all, it cannot be excluded that it was in the autograph itself that the pair of hairpins was placed directly under the d1 minim). As there are no doubts that the marks are to emphasise this very minim, according to us, one can also combine the  of GE1 with the accent of A1. The versions of FE (→EE) and GE2 result from inaccuracies and mistakes of the engravers.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Centrally placed marks

b. 49

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

..

The cautionary natural before e1 was added in the proofreading of FE (→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Cautionary accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE