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. 89-93

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

 in bar 91 in AI

    in AF

    in FE & GE1

 in bar 89 in EE

    in GE2
..

The  mark in b. 91 is the only pedalling marking in AI. The four-bar pedal in the later sources develops and specifies it, although the placement of the  mark is unclear due to the differences between the sources. According to us, in this context the individual sources are rather a result of inaccuracies of notation than of different concepts. In the main text we take into account the message conveyed by the  mark written by Chopin in AF – before the 1st note of b. 93, i.e. at the end of b. 92. At the same time, it is a graphical compromise between the notation of AF and FE & GE1 (coincidentally, it corresponds to the notation of GE2). 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 90-92

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

in AI

 in AF

in FE (→EE)

in GE
..

In the main text we give the  hairpin after AF, since the range of the mark in b. 92 seems to be related to the accent on the culminant g2 minim, present only in this autograph; it may also be related to the dotted rhythm preceding the minim (cf. the notation of AI). The longer mark of GE, which most probably reproduces the notation of [AG], may be considered an equal variant.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 91

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

No mark in AI & GE

Staccato dot in AF (→FE→EE)
..

It seems highly unlikely that Chopin would have forgone a staccato dot while writing [AG] (→GE), hence we give it directly in the main text. Its absence in GE may be explained by a mistake of the engraver, Chopin's inadvertence or by the possibility of the dot having been added in AF after [AG] had been finished.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 92

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

No mark in AI & GE

 in AF, literal reading

Long accent in AF (contextual interpretation→FE)

Short accent in EE
..

In AF the long accent under the culminant g2 minim reaches as far as the beginning of the next bar; therefore, taking into account the preceding  and the following , one may also interpret it as a diminuendo mark. However, a comparison with the unequivocal long accents in b. 94, 98 suggests that the mark should rather be interpreted as an accent.

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

issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies

b. 92

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

Quavers in AI & GE

Dotted rhythm in AF (→FE→EE)
..

In the main text we give the dotted rhythm of AF (→FE→EE), whose nature corresponds to a Chopinesque improvement. The g2 minim preceded by two quavers somewhat fades into the wave of the crescendo, which reaches its climax thereupon. In turn, preceded by a dotted rhythm, it additionally becomes an important signal, suggesting a breakthrough in the course of music. It seems that the details of the dynamic indications correspond to this difference, i.e. the range of the  hairpin and the presence/absence of a long accent.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Dotted or even rhythm