mUltimate Chopin

Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

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. 75-76

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

No pedalling in AI

 in AF & EE

     in FE

  in GE

Our variant suggestion
..

The missing  mark in AF is probably an inaccuracy; Chopin wanted both bars to be performed with one pedal, which is confirmed by a  mark added – probably by the composer – in the proofreading stage of FE. In the main text, we leave the choice of one of the versions – FE or GE – to the discretion of the performer.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE , No pedal release mark

b. 76-77

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

No sign in AI & GE

in AF

in FE (→EE)
..

In the main text we give the  hairpin written in AF. One can have doubts whether the mark should not be placed earlier, before the return of the main phrase of this section, the way it was reproduced in FE (→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 77-87

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

B in AI & AF (→FE→EE)

B1 in GE
..

In the main text we give the version of GE, in which the bass notes in b. 77, 79, 85 and 87 are placed an octave lower with respect to the remaining sources. There is no doubt that it is a Chopinesque improvement – he would use this tool on a number of occasions, e.g. in the Waltz in C Minor, Op. 64 No. 2, b. 1-2.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Accompaniment changes

b. 77

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

Continuous slur in AI, FE & GE

2 slurs in AF, contextual interpretation

No slur in EE
..

Like in b. 45, due to the beginning of a new phrase, we assume that it is the slurs converging with each other that the notation of AF represents. However, in this place the notation of AI does not confirm such an interpretation. The missing slur in EE is probably an oversight – the slurs are absent in the entire section encompassing b. 69-92.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 77-88

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

 under or after 3rd crotchet in AF, contextual interpretation

after 3rd crotchet in FE (→EE)

under 3rd crotchet in GE
..

Once again, like in analogous b. 45-57, the  marks are placed in AF under or after the 3rd crotchet of the bar. However, their placement is not explicitly linked to the harmonic content of the chords – marks after the 3rd crotchet are to be found in, e.g. b. 77 and 79, in which the chord changes to E major on the 3rd beat (in the substantive transcription we move them under the 3rd crotchet). FE and EE standardised the position of the marks yet without taking into account harmonic changes, which must be a result of inaccuracy of the engraver. In the main text we reproduce the consistent and reasonable notation of GE.
B. 86-87 are discussed separately.
AI is devoid of pedalling markings here. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in A