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. 31-32

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

d2 repeated in AI, AF, GE & EE

d2 tied in FE
..

In the main text we give the version of both preserved autographs, which, assuming on the basis of GE, could also have been in [AG]. The version of FE, almost certainly proofread by Chopin, can be considered equal.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 31-32

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

Slur in AI & AF (→FE→EE)

No slur in GE
..

The missing f1-g1 slur in GE is most probably an oversight. Cf. similar inaccuracies in the notation of other slurs in these motifs.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 31

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

No mark in AI, AF (→FE→EE) & GE2

Accent in GE1
..

In the main text we take into account the accent of GE1 – it is most probably a clarification entered into [AG]. The absence of the mark in GE2 is most probably an oversight of the engraver. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 32-33

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

Slur from bar 33 in AI & GE

Slur from bar 32 in AF (→FE→EE)
..

AI is lacking in the beginning of the R.H. slur at the end of b. 32, which closes the line. The slur that begins in b. 33 is ambiguous – it may suggest continuation, yet we assume that it starts only just in this bar. A similar situation can be found in GE, in which the slur also begins along with a new line in b. 33. In both cases, an inaccuracy of notation may be suspected, hence in the main text we give the slur of AF (→FE→EE), confirmed by the concordant version of all the sources in analog. b. 124-125.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Uncertain slur continuation

b. 33

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

Slur in bar 36-37 in AI

Continuous slur in AF

Slur in bars 33-34 in FE (→EE), literal reading

2 slurs in GE

Our alternative suggestion
..

In the main text we give the slur of AF, which is unquestionable in terms of sources and style. As an alternative, we suggest a contextual interpretation of GE, based on a comparison with analogous b. 125-129. AI presents an unfinished notation, while the inaccurate version of FE (→EE) is probably incomplete, since the slur at the end of the line (b. 34) points to continuation, which does not take place in the next bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources