mUltimate Chopin

Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic corrections of FE

b. 75-76

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

No pedalling in AI

 in AF & EE

     in FE

  in GE

Our variant suggestion
..

The missing  mark in AF is probably an inaccuracy; Chopin wanted both bars to be performed with one pedal, which is confirmed by a  mark added – probably by the composer – in the proofreading stage of FE. In the main text, we leave the choice of one of the versions – FE or GE – to the discretion of the performer.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE , No pedal release mark

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. 100-101

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

No sign in AI & EE

in AF

in FE & GE2

in GE1

 suggested by the editors (AF in bars 8-9)
..

A comparison with other sources, as well as with the notation of both autographs in analogous b. 8-9, suggests that the  hairpin is too long here in AF. Due to this reason, in the main text we suggest the notation used in an analogous place the first time, which is substantially consistent with the notation of GE1.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Authentic corrections of FE , Inaccuracies in A

b. 109

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

Long accent in AF, contextual interpretation

in FE (→EE)

Shifted short accent in GE1

Short accent in GE2
..

The accent in AF is quite short in this bar, hence it is its shape and context that make us consider it a long accent. The presence of a significantly longer mark in FE (→EE) – such as in analogous b. 17 – points to a possible intervention of a reviser or perhaps Chopin himself. A change performed on Chopin's order would confirm the mark to be a long accent. The mark in GE1 was placed inaccurately, so it is not entirely certain which beat of the bar it concerns.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 115

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

Long accent in Af, probable interpretation

2 long accents in FE

L.H. short accent in EE

Short accent in GE
..

The two accents written in AF in analogous b. 19 and 111 have the characteristics that are frequently encountered in the notation of short accents – the mark tilted upwards and a relatively big angle between the arms. However, the mark in the discussed bar is less characteristic in this respect; therefore, we assume that it is a long accent. In FE (→EE) it was placed under the L.H. chord by mistake, which Chopin then corrected in the last stage of proofreading by adding a second accent under the R.H. triplet. According to us, the added accent – certainly long – tips the balance in favour of long accents in all analogous bars. The short accent in GE may be considered an alternative version. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of FE