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. 174-176

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

Long accents in AI & AF

Short accents in FE (→EE)

Short accents in GE

Long accents suggested by the editors
..

In both preserved autographs the accents are clearly closer to the bottom stave. According to us, it does not mean that it is only the two bottom notes of the chords performed by the L.H. that should be accented, which could have attenuated this dramatic culmination in  dynamics. (Chopin might have wanted to emphasise g1, to which the bass voice in the preceding progression was led.) Due to the same reason, it is difficult to assume that the accents under the R.H. part visible in GE could correspond to Chopin's intention; however, it is certain that the notation of [AG] did not suggest that the L.H. be accented. In this situation, in the main text we place the accents in the middle, in accordance with FE (→EE).

AI and AF feature long accents, which was not taken into account in any of the editions.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , Placement of markings

b. 177

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

Accent in AI & AF (literal reading)

Accent in AI & AF (contextual interpretation→FE→EE)

> in GE1

> above  in GE2
..

In both autographs the accent in this bar is shorter than the previous ones, although – particularly in AI – it is not entirely certain whether the difference is to be regarded as significant. Taking into account the different rhythmic value of the chord, we assume that the accent's length is correlated with it. Just like in the previous bars, the accent in AI and AF is closer to the L.H. part, which, according to us, is an inaccuracy. In the main text we reproduce the combined > marks, typical of Chopin, after GE1; the marks are an appropriate ending of the preceding crescendo. The separate accent in GE2 must be a revision.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , GE revisions

b. 177-180

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

No sign in AI & AF (→FE→EE)

in GE
..

In the main text we give the  hairpin after GE. A simultaneous use of a dynamic hairpin and a nominally equivalent verbal indication can often be found in Chopin's works (it is particularly the combination of  and cresc. that is very typical).

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 177-179

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

dim. - - in AF (→FE→EE)

dimin. in GE
..

In the main text we give dimin. after GE. The absence of the dashes marking its range can be explained by the presence of a  hairpin in this edition.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 180-188

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

No L.H. slurs in AI & AF (→FE→EE)

L.H. slurs in GE
..

The L.H. slurs in b. 180-182 and 185-188 must be a Chopinesque improvement from [AG] (→GE). Cf. b. 173-176.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations