mUltimate Chopin

Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Long accents

b. 76

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

 in A1, literal reading

Long accent in A1, contextual interpretation

Short accent in FE (→EE) & GE
..

The mark in A1 is clearly longer than the accents in the previous 3 bars as well as than the marks in b. 81-83. In spite of that, according to us, it is to be interpreted as a long accent, which is indicated by its unequivocal graphic relationship with the b minim. Marks of similar length are featured in A1 as long accents, e.g. in b. 6 or 26. The short accent in the editions is most probably an inaccuracy (and certainly in FE). 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 81-83

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

5 long accents in A1

5 short accents in FE

3 long, 2 short accents in GE1

2 long, 3 short accents in GE2

3 short accents in EE
..

The long accents of A1 are most probably an earlier version and may be considered a variant. The short accents of FE could also have been accepted by Chopin, who added two of them – in b. 81-82 – probably in the last stage of proofreading, since they are absent in EE. In the main text we give differentiated accents after GE2, which fittingly systematised the notation of GE1, which is slightly chaotic, yet most probably substantially compliant with [A2]. Moreover, we suggest an alternative interpretation of the notation of GE1, consistent with the literal interpretation of A1 in b. 73-75. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 84

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

Inverted long accent in A1, probably interpretation

Long accent in FE

in GE

No mark in EE
..

The mark of A1, with arms of different length, may be interpreted as a reversed long accent or a short  hairpin, which would correspond to the version of GE. According to us, the former is more likely; however, in the main text we adopt a non-reversed long accent, which may be a result of Chopinesque proofreading of FE and which is compliant with the unquestionable marking in analogous b. 76.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Sign reversal , Authentic corrections of FE