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. 12

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

Arpeggio sign & grace note in Afrag & A1

Tied grace note in FE1 (→EE)

Grace note & arpeggio sign in GE1

Grace note in FE2 & GE2
..

Both manners of writing an arpeggio with a doubled bottom note mean the same performance and both were used by Chopin (the combination used in GE appears in A1 in b. 80 as well as in, e.g. the autograph of Allegro de Concert, Op. 46, b. 138-139, 232, 236). In the main text we give the notation of the principal source, i.e. GE1. The remaining versions are erroneous: in FE1 the vertical little slur of A1 was not recognised as an arpeggio, whereas in FE2 and GE2 the marks were overlooked. There is a similar situation in b. 36 and 68.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in GE

b. 12-13

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

No sign in Afrag

 in A1 (literal reading→FE1)

 in A1, contextual interpretation

in GE & EE
..

According to us, the  hairpin written in A1 is to be interpreted as ending before the  indication in b. 13. It is most likely that Chopin first wrote the top arm (perhaps before entering ) and then indicated the end of the mark with the ending of the bottom arm. Such an interpretation is confirmed by the mark of A1 in b. 36 and the notation of GE based on [A2] (in GE2 the mark was shortened with respect to GE1, which does not influence its meaning). In FE the mark was interpreted according to the length of the top arm; moreover, FE2 reproduced it inaccurately. It remains unclear how come that the mark was shortened in EE – perhaps by analogy with b. 36. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Corrections in A , EE inaccuracies , Hairpins denoting continuation , Inaccuracies in A

b. 12-36

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

Minim in Afrag, A1 & GE

Dotted minim in FE (→EE)
..

According to us, prolonging the b minim with a dot in b. 12 and 36 is not musically justified due to the transfer of that element an octave higher in the last chord and due to the absence of a direct continuation of the tenor sound plane. It is most probably a revision provoked by the two-part notation of the G-b tenth in A1 (→FE→EE), which makes an impression of being metrically incomplete (in GE Chopin already used the one-part notation to write the tenth). Similar differences also appear in analogous b. 68.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions

b. 13-17

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

Slur to bar 17 in A1 (→FE)

Slur to end of bar 16 in GE

No slur in EE
..

In the main text we give the more natural slur of GE. The absence of a slur in EE must be a mistake, perhaps repeated after the proof copy of FE1.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE

b. 13-36

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

..

Afrag ends in b. 12. In the further part of the Mazurka, this source will not be mentioned in specific notes.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Incomplete sources