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. 1

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

Wedge in Afrag & A1

Staccato dot in FE (→EE) & GE
..

In the main text we give a wedge as the staccato mark over the 1st quaver in the R.H. Wedge is present in both preserved autographs, i.e. Afrag and A1. We do so because the engraver of GE1 reproducing the notation of [A2] inaccurately seems to be more likely than a change of this detail while writing [A2] (an example of such an inaccuracy is FE1, in which dots are present wherever A1 clearly features wedges).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Wedges

b. 4

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

No mark in Afrag & A1 (→FE→EE)

Staccato dot in GE
..

In the main text we give the staccato dot with which Chopin provided the 1st chord of the bar in [A2] (→GE). There is a similar situation in b. 28 and 60.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 5

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

Wedge in Afrag

Staccato dot in A1 (→FE→EE) & GE
..

The wedge in Afrag is probably the original version (or simply an inaccuracy).

category imprint: Differences between sources

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. 11-12

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

No sign in Afrag, A1 & EE

in FE

in GE
..

Chopin added a  both in [A2] (→GE) and in the proofreading of FE; however, the range of the marks differs significantly: the mark in FE emphasises chiefly the very culminant chord, whereas the hairpin of GE creates a slightly further plane of escalation. In the main text we follow the principal source, i.e. GE, yet we consider the latest version of FE to be an equal variant. There is a similar situation in b. 67-68.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE