mUltimate Chopin

Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 25-33

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

Wedges in A1

Staccato dots in FE (→EE) & GE
..

In b. 25 and 33, taking into account the possibility of an inaccurate, simplified interpretation of possible wedges of [A2] by GE, in the main text we give the wedges written in A1. The interpretation of those marks in FE is most probably inaccurate.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Wedges

b. 26

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

 in A1, literal reading

Long accent in A1 (contextual interpretation) & GE

in FE (→EE)
..

In spite of its significant size, the  mark in A1 is undoubtedly a long accent, which is confirmed by a comparison with GE (based on [A2]) and with the analogous bars. The fact of shifting the mark in FE (→EE) most probably resulted from misinterpretation of its meaning.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 27-29

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

Slurs in A1, literal reading

Slurs in A1, contextual interpretation

Slur in FE

Slur in GE

Slur in EE
..

According to us, the slur of A1 in b. 27-28, coinciding with the next one on the minim in b. 28, is one of a few inaccuracies of notation of slurs in the sources concerning this Mazurka. The suggested interpretation is based on the assumption that the slurs of A1 generally describe the same performance manner as the slur and the staccato dot used in [A2] (→GE1). In other words, Chopin was certain of the performance concept of that phrase, he was just looking for the best way to write it down.
EE most probably convey the version of FE1 prior to the final stage of Chopin's proofreading, while the slur of GE is affected by a similar inaccuracy as the notation of A1.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Authentic corrections of FE

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. 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