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
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

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. 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

b. 123

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

No sign in sources

[] suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we suggest adding a  hairpin after the mark of GE in analogous b. 31.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 124-125

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

No sign in AF (→FE→EE)

in GE

 suggested by the editors
..

In GE the short  hairpin was most probably reproduced inaccurately, since the mark clearly refers to the R.H. part and seems to command crescendo at the beginning of the chord, which lasts the entire bar. Therefore, it is either a reversed accent or – which is more likely – a  emphasising the secundal step under b. 124-125. It is the last interpretation that we suggest in the main text. A similar marking of such motifs, often misinterpreted by engravers, can be found in Chopin's pieces on a number of occasions, e.g. in the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, II mov., b. 84. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 134-135

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

in AF

in FE (→EE)

No sign in GE

() suggested by the editors
..

The change of the range and position of the  hairpin in FE (→EE), although minor, is yet important – the mark of FE seems to concern the R.H. bottom voice, which does not result from the Chopinesque notation. According to us, it refers to the R.H. top voice, yet due to the notation without spaces between the great staves, its placement over this voice would be misleading – it could be interpreted as a mark under the L.H. part in b. 119. Taking into account the not entirely precise notation, in the main text we include a  in a variant form.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in FE