mUltimate Chopin

Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins

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. 43-44

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

 in A1 (→FE1→EE)

No sign in GE

Shorter  in FE2
..

In the main text we include the  hairpin from A1 (→FE1→EE), since it is difficult to assume that Chopin would have removed that mark, determining the direction in which the phrase should develop, on purpose in [A2] (→GE). FE2 reproduced it inaccurately.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic 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. 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