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. 5-6

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

Slur reaching beyond bar 6 in Afrag, GE & contextual interpretation of A1

Slur to end of bar 6 in A1, literal reading

Slur to end of bar 5, interpretation 

Slur to minim in bar 6 in FE2 & EE
..

The slurs of Afrag and GE are unequivocal; since such a slur is featured in all analogous bars in GE, we give it – as present in [A2] – in the main text. The slur of FE is clearly erroneous, which was corrected in FE2 and EE, most probably on the basis of comparison with b. 1-2. The slur of A1 is problematic; just like the remaining slurs in the 1st line of the manuscript, it reaches the end of the bar, yet its shape suggests that it is supposed to be led to the beginning of the next bar. It is explicitly confirmed by the fact of ending the slur in b. 11 (on a new line) as well as by the unequivocal slur in b. 25-27, corrected by Chopin. In such a context, we interpret the slur of A1 as reaching the 1st quaver in b. 7.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , FE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation , Tenuto slurs

b. 7-9

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

Continued slur to end of bar 8 in Afrag

New slur to end of bar 8 in A1, literal reading

2 slurs in A1, contextual interpretation

New slur to bar 9 in FE1

Continued slur to bar 9 in GE

No slur in FE2 & EE
..

To the main text we adopt the version of GE, consistently present also in analogous b. 31-33 and 63-65, which shows that the notation of [A2] was almost certainly like that. We can also see the continuation of the slur over the rest in b. 7 written by Chopin's hand in Afrag, while the fact that the slur was led to b. 9 is confirmed by the slur of A1 in b. 32-33 and possible Chopinesque proofreading of FE1 in b. 8-9 and FE2 in b. 64-65. The version of EE and FE2 is erroneous. See also b. 5-6.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE , Uncertain slur continuation , Tenuto slurs

b. 8-9

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

c1 repeated in Afrag & GE, possible interpretation of FE1 (→EE)

c1 tied in A1 (→contextual interpretation of FE1)

No c1 in FE2
..

It seems that Chopin abandoned the tie of c1 – in analogous b. 32-33 the tie is absent in all the sources, while in GE it is absent in all three analogous places (b. 8-9, 32-33 and 64-65). The absence of the tie in Afrag can be explained twofold (unless it is simply an oversight):

  • as testimony to Chopin's hesitation, if we consider this autograph to be earlier than A1;
  • as confirmation of abandonment of that tie, if it was written at a time when A1 had already been prepared.

In FE1 (→EE) the tie was reproduced erroneously in b. 9 – such mirror images of marks can often be found in Chopin's pieces, e.g. in the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, 3rd mov., b. 172-173. The erroneous tie was removed in FE2; however, the correct one was not added – it may be seen as Chopin's proofreading and another argument for abandoning the tie of that note (the issue of presence of the c1 note in FE2 at the beginning of b. 9 – see the next note).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Chopin's hesitations , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 9

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

Staccato dot in Afrag, FE1 (→EE) & GE

Wedge in A1 & FE2
..

Taking into account a possibility of an erroneous, simplified interpretation of GE of possible wedges of [A2], in the main text we give a wedge, written here in A1. We consider the staccato dot of Afrag to be a non-final stage of the search for a coherent concept of articulation markings of this and the analogous quavers; in turn, we consider the version of FE1 to be an example of the engraver having misunderstood the Chopinesque wedge. The wedge in FE2 could have been introduced on the basis of a new comparison with A1, although a significant number of oversights and other defects in that edition points to its hasty preparation rather than to careful edition using the manuscript. However, it may be a result of Chopin's sketchy proofreading, particularly if the mark was initially not there at all – see b. 17. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Wedges

b. 9

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

..

On the copy of FE2 presented in mUltimate Chopin, the c1 note seems to be removed from the first quaver in b. 9. Unfortunately, the inability to compare it with another copy – the only catalogued one is in the Viennese Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, which does not share the digitised versions of their collection – does not allow us to check whether it is merely a misprint. If the note was actually removed, it could have been:

  • a mistake while removing the tie;
  • a revision – in terms of sound, the version of FE2 without c1 is very close to the version of A1, which holds the note;
  • Chopinesque proofreading performed ad hoc (according to us, least likely).

See the previous note.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE , FE revisions