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. 116

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

Staccato dot in AF & GE

No mark in FE (→EE)
..

The missing staccato dot over the c1-e1 third must be a mistake by the engraver of FE (→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 117-118

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

in AF

in FE (→EE) & GE
..

It is the top arm of the  hairpin in AF, probably written first, that we consider to be reliable, since it emphasises the accenting nature of this mark. In FE (based on AF) the mark begins slightly later, which allows us to assume that it could have also been in GE that the engraver began the hairpin later in order to avoid an intersection with the bottom voice stem (two bars later the mark is present in GE only, hence without [AG] one cannot say whether Chopin repeated this notation there).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 117-119

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

No pedalling in AF (→FE→EE)

Pedalling in GE
..

Just like in b. 25-29, the pedalling markings in b. 117 and 119 are an improvement introduced by Chopin in [AG] or at the time of proofreading GE1. See also b. 121.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 119-121

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

2 slurs in AF & EE

2 slurs in FE, literal reading

Continuous slur in GE
..

The fact that the slur is not continued on a new line (b. 120) is a patent mistake of FE, revised in EE. The continuous slur of GE is also erroneous, although, while looking at the slurs of AF, one can easily imagine that if the slur of [AG] in b. 120 were even slightly longer, the engraver of GE1 could have interpreted such overlapping slurs in this manner.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 120-122

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

in AF (→FE)

  in GE

No signs in EE

  suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we follow the marks of GE, in which the markings are more accurate in this fragment (pedalling in b. 117-121,  in b. 119). The only element we modify is the ending of the mark, since b. 121 closes a line in this edition; therefore, even if the notation of [AG] resembled the one of AF, the engraver could have considered the placement of a very short ending of a hairpin in a new line to be irrational. The version of AF (→FE) can be considered an equal variant.
In fact, the difference may be subtle – the mark of AF suggest the most emphasis on the crotchet ending b. 120, whereas in the version of GE such a local climax can be this chord or the minim in b. 121.
The missing mark in EE is probably an oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in EE