mUltimate Chopin

Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies 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. 30-31

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

2 slurs in A1, literal reading

2 slurs in A1 (contextual interpretation) & FE2

2 slurs in FE1 (→EE)

Continuous slur in GE
..

The ending of the slur over b. 30-31 is uncertain in A1: at the end of the line, in b. 30, the slur suggests continuation, yet there is no ending thereof in b. 31. A comparison with the slur in b. 26-27, extended by Chopin, proves that it is the missing ending of the slur in b. 31 that is a mistake. Such interpreted slurs are featured in FE2, which may be a result of Chopin's proofreading, since FE1 considered the slur in b. 30 to be inaccurate and shortened it correspondingly. In the main text we give the unquestionable four-bar slur of GE1, reflecting [A2] (in GE2 it was reproduced inaccurately: in b. 30, which ends the page, the slur reaches the minim only; see also b. 65-66).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Authentic corrections of FE , Uncertain slur continuation

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

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