mUltimate Chopin

Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in A

b. 45-58

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

 under or after 3rd crotchet in AF, contextual interpretation

after 3rd crotchet in FE (→EE)

under 3rd crotchet in GE
..

AI is devoid of pedalling markings in the entire fragment (until b. 91), which does not carry any information about the pedalling itself – Chopin simply did not mark it in the unfinished manuscript; consequently, we do not treat it on a par with the other variants. The  marks are placed in AF before, under or after the 3rd crotchet of the bar, yet their placement is not explicitly linked to the harmonic content of the chords, e.g. marks after the 3rd crotchet are to be found in b. 48, 54 and 56, in which the chord does not change, as well as in b. 55, in which the chord changes on the 3rd beat to E major. FE and GE do not bear traces of intervention in this respect – they reproduced the notation of AF, yet inaccurately and with tendency to delay the pedal release. In the main text we reproduce the consistent notation of GE, in which the placement of the  marks was standardised in a satisfactory manner, as far as the sound is concerned, both in the bars where the chord changes and where it does not.
B. 46-47 are discussed separately. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in A

b. 77-88

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

 under or after 3rd crotchet in AF, contextual interpretation

after 3rd crotchet in FE (→EE)

under 3rd crotchet in GE
..

Once again, like in analogous b. 45-57, the  marks are placed in AF under or after the 3rd crotchet of the bar. However, their placement is not explicitly linked to the harmonic content of the chords – marks after the 3rd crotchet are to be found in, e.g. b. 77 and 79, in which the chord changes to E major on the 3rd beat (in the substantive transcription we move them under the 3rd crotchet). FE and EE standardised the position of the marks yet without taking into account harmonic changes, which must be a result of inaccuracy of the engraver. In the main text we reproduce the consistent and reasonable notation of GE.
B. 86-87 are discussed separately.
AI is devoid of pedalling markings here. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in A

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. 112

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

No markings in AF (→FE→EE)

Slur & staccato dot in GE
..

The lack of both markings – a slur and a staccato dot – is undoubtedly Chopin's oversight in AF (→FE→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in A

b. 114-115

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

No slur in AF (→FE→EE)

Slur in GE
..

The missing slur is Chopin's oversight in AF (→FE→EE), most probably provoked by the transition to a new line.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in A