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. 134-140

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

3 long & 2 short accents in AF

5 short accents in FE (→EE)

5 long accents in GE
..

In AF the accents in b. 139-140 are clearly shorter than the three previous ones in b. 134, 136 and 138, hence we reproduce them as short. However, if we were to compare them to the distribution of the notes, it would turn out that they are actually the same length – each reaches more or less the middle of the triplet. Therefore, it is most likely that Chopin meant all of them to be long accents, the way it is clearly shown in GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 135-137

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

No marks in AF (→FE→EE)

Staccato dots in GE
..

The missing staccato dots on the 2nd and 3rd beats of b. 135 and 137 are most probably an inaccuracy of AF (→FE→EE) – cf. b. 11 and 103. The oversight of these marks could have provoked a manifest slurring error – see the note in the next bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in A

b. 141-143

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

  in AF (→FE)

  in GE

 in EE
..

In the main text we give the   hairpins after AF (→FE), in which they are compliant with all markings of the sources in analogous b. 145-147. It suggests that the marks of GE in the discussed bars may be inaccurate. The absence of the second mark in EE is most probably a mistake.
In AI such markings are absent for the rest of the Mazurka.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 148

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  mark after GE, which most probably reproduce the notation of [AG].

category imprint: Differences between sources

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