mUltimate Chopin

Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in GE

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. 28

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

No mark in Afrag, A1 (→FE→EE) & GE2

Staccato dot in GE1
..

In the main text we give the staccato dot with which Chopin provided the 1st chord of the bar in [A2] (→GE1). There is a similar situation in b. 4 and 60. The absence of the mark in GE2 must be an oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in GE

b. 54-55

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

e2 tied in A1 (→FE→EE) & GE1

e2 repeated in GE2
..

The missing tie of e2 in GE2 is probably down to a combination of two factors:

  • wear and tear of the plate of GE1: in b. 54 (at the end of the line) the tie of GE1 is imprinted so unintelligibly that it is actually imperceptible;
  • in b. 55 there is no continuation of the phrase mark from the previous bars in GE1.

Consequently, the engraver of GE2 considered the ending of the tie of e2 in b. 55 to be the ending of the phrase mark and moved that little slur higher, over the quaver beam (that slur is included in the note on the curved lines in b. 55-57).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 55-57

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

2 slurs in A1

Continuous slur in FE

Slur from f1 in bar 57 in GE1

Probable slurs in [A2], our alternative suggestion

Slur from d1 in bar 57 in EE

Slur to e2 in bar 55 in GE2
..

Except for the versions of GE1, GE2 and EE, which are clearly erroneous and which overlooked some of the curved lines, there are most probably three authentic versions of slurring for these bars: A1, [A2] and FE, proofread by Chopin. We do not know [A2] directly, yet one may closely reconstruct it on the basis of GE1 and the remaining authentic versions: since there are no notes that would not be encompassed with a slur in A1 and FE, it was most probably also the case of [A2], which means that the continuation of the slur from b. 53-54 overlooked in GE1 led to the first crotchet in b. 57. This version may be considered an equal variant with respect to the main text, which we hold for the version of FE, the latest of the three authentic ones, introduced probably instead of the version of A1 (perhaps incomplete, which may be indicated by the text of EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 57

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

No markings in A1 (→FE→EE) & GE2

Pedalling in GE1
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE