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. 17

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

Long accent in AI

in AF (→FE)

Short accent in GE

No mark in EE
..

The  mark, although reaching the end of the bar in AF (→FE), is certainly to be interpreted as a long accent. It is proven by comparison with the marks in other sources, i.e. the long accent in AI and the short one in GE, and with the analogous places in this autograph. The absence of the mark in EE seems to be a mistake of the edition's engraver.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in EE

b. 17-23

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

4 staccato dots in AI

Dots in bar 17, 19 & 21 in AF

Dot in bar 19 in FE

Dots in bars 19, 21 & 23

No marks in EE
..

In the majority of the sources it is only some of the staccato dots that are present at the beginning of b. 17, 19, 21 and 23. All four dots are written – paradoxically – only in AI. This is the version we give in the main text, since nothing indicates that it could have been something other than mistakes and inaccuracies of the engravers or of Chopin himself that contributed to the creation of the other versions. It is particularly the missing mark in AF in b. 23 that could have been provoked by corrections to the layout in b. 21-23 – from the 2nd beat of b. 21 on, Chopin moved all the a notes from the bottom to the top stave (in GE the note in b. 23 is on the bottom stave and is provided with a dot). Staccato marks in all four places are present in AF in analogous b. 109-115.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Errors in FE , Corrections in A , Deletions in A , Inaccuracies in A

b. 18-22

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

Short accents in AI (literal reading), FE (→EE) & GE

Long accents, possible interpretation of AI & AF
..

The notation of the autographs does not explicitly reveal which accents were meant by Chopin in b. 18 and 22. According to us, in spite of them being similar – particularly in AF – to long accents, the marks are rather to be interpreted as short due to the rhythmic analogy with b. 20 and 24, which undoubtedly feature short accents. 

In b. 22 in AF one can see a crossed-out short accent over the chord on the 3rd beat of the bar. Both accents in AI are also placed over the chords, which, according to us, does not influence the performance in this context.

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

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Corrections in A , Deletions in A

b. 18

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

Slur in #A1 & GE

No slur in AF (→FE→EE)
..

The missing slur (and the staccato dot – see the adjacent note) must be Chopin's inadvertence in AF – in this autograph, respective marks are in all three analogous b. 22, 110 and 114.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in A

b. 18-21

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

No slurs in AI & FE (→EE)

Slur in bars 18-19 in AF

2 slurs in GE
..

In the main text we include the slurs combining the last chord in b. 18 and 20 with the first note in the next bar. The absence of the slur in b. 20-21 must be Chopin's oversight in AF (→FE→EE). See also b. 22-23.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in A