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. 159-160

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  mark written in AF, in which the dynamic markings in this fragment – see the note in the previous bar – are more detailed as a whole than in GE. However, the exact range of the sign may raise doubts – its arms are of different length, while in an analogous situation in b. 167-168 a respective mark reaches the 2nd beat of b. 168 only, which seems to be more natural in this context (locally, f1 is the topmost note of the melody, suspension and syncopation). Such a range of this  mark, slightly shorter, is featured in FE (→EE), yet it may result from the engraver's inaccuracy.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in A

b. 159

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

Rest in AI

No rest in AF (→FE→EE) & GE
..

In this layout, the rest in AI, although formally justified, could suggest the g note to be played by the L.H. Therefore, it seems that it could have been the reason for its removal in AF (→FE→EE). Chopin omitted it also in GE. In analogous b. 167 the rest was crossed out both in AI and AF.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A , Corrections of AI

b. 160

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

..

AI is lacking in a  restoring f1 on the 2nd beat of the bar; in turn, it features a superfluous  before c1. All the remaining sources contain the necessary sign before f1, yet it is only GE in which there is no  before c1.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals

b. 160

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

..

There is an unjustified  (cautionary?) before the A crotchet in GE. It is difficult to tell whether the accidental was already in [AG], and if not, whether it was added by the reviser or by Chopin.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Cautionary accidentals

b. 160

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

No mark in AI, GE & EE

in AF

Long accent in FE
..

The mark in AF, in spite of its excessive size, could be considered a long accent if it were not for an even longer mark in analogous b. 168. Due to this reason, in the main text we keep the form of this mark written in AF, which, according to Chopin, could have been supposed to emphasise not only the minim, but also its modulating continuation. The absence of the mark in EE probably means that it was overlooked in the proof copy of FE. Then the long accent printed in the finished FE would be a result of Chopin's proofreading. A similar situation can be found in b. 168.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Scope of dynamic hairpins