mUltimate Chopin

Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in FE

b. 24

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

Slur in AI, AF & GE

No slur in FE (→EE)
..

In this context the concordant version of the other sources proves the FE (→EE) version to be erroneous.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 29-32

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

No slurs in AI

Continuous slur in AF

2 slurs in FE, literal reading

2 slurs in FE, contextual interpretation

Slur in EE

2 slurs in GE1, literal reading

2 slurs in GE1, contextual interpretation

2 slurs in GE2
..

The majority of the source versions are a result of inaccuracies and mistakes. Out of the written-down versions of the slurring, hence except for AI, it is only two slurs that seem to be authentic:

  • the continuous slur of AF, which we give in the main text as written by Chopin's hand and confirmed by the same slur of AF (→FE→EE) in analogous b. 121-124;
  • contextual interpretation of two slurs of GE1 consisting in dragging the slur to the g crotchet in b. 32 after the ending of the slur of GE1 in b. 124.

The issue concerning the differences in slurring in the next bars – see b. 33-37.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in GE , FE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 37-39

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

Slur in AI

2 slurs in AF

Slur in FE (→EE) & GE
..

The slur of AI encompasses the top stave without distinguishing particular voices. The slurring of AF emphasises the quasi-polyphonic texture, yet in the next bars (on a new line) Chopin did not continue the slurring of the inner voices. It was probably one of the reasons why the bottom slur in FE (→EE) was omitted – the engraver could have had doubts where and how it should be led. The relationship between [AG] and GE could have been similar, since the fact that the top slur starts only just in b. 38 suggests that another slur began in b. 37 in [AG] (see also b. 129-131).
In the main text we give the slurs of AF, whereby we interpret the bottom one to be reaching the e1 minim in b. 39 after the AF slur in analogous b. 129-131.

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

issues: Errors in FE

b. 39-42

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

Slur in bars 39-41 in AI

Slur in bars 40-41 in AF

No slur in FE (→EE)

Slur in bars 39-42 in GE

Our alternative suggestion
..

In the main text we give the AF slur indicating the a1-b1 step between b. 40 and 41 as the end of the tenor voice. The GE slur, which must also be authentic, since it is actually identical with the AI slur, can be considered an equal variant. Alternatively, we additionally suggest a slur binding the elements of both source versions that can be combined in a way that would make sense.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in FE

b. 73-75

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

No marking in AI

in AF

 in FE (literal reading→EE)

dimin.  in GE
..

In the main text we give the version of GE, which is probably later. In AF one can see that the hairpin blends with the L.H. slur, which could have prompted Chopin to use a verbal indication in [AG]. In FE the hairpin breaks at the end of the line, in b. 74, which EE reproduced in the simplest way possible by inserting a complete mark of such a range.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins