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
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Articulation, Accents, 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

b. 53-54

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

No sign in FE (→EE)

in GE
..

In the main text we give the  hairpin after GE. In A1 the mark begins a beat earlier, yet there is no  at the beginning of that bar in that autograph. The absence of the mark in FE (→EE) is probably an oversight of the engraver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 53

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

Long accent in A1 & GE1

Short accent in FE (→EE) & GE2
..

The shortened accent is an inaccuracy of FE (→EE) and GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 55

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

in A1

in FE1

No sign in GE & FE2

in EE

Our variant suggestion
..

In the main text we include the  hairpin written in A1 in a variant form. The mark seems to harmonise with the dynamic indications of GE; however, it cannot be ruled out that Chopin did not see the need to place that mark here. See also b. 56. The hairpin was not reproduced correctly in any of the three editions stemming from A1.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 56

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

in A1

Long accent in FE1

No sign in GE

Short accent in EE & FE2

Our variant suggestion
..

According to us, the mark in A1, although it could be considered a long accent (as it was interpreted in FE1), could be a diminuendo, hence we leave it with its actual length. In the main text we give the mark in brackets, since it is absent in GE, from which  in the next bar comes; moreover, it is also uncertain whether Chopin would have considered it compliant with the dynamic markings of GE.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies