mUltimate Chopin

Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 76-77

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  hairpin written in AF. One can have doubts whether the mark should not be placed earlier, before the return of the main phrase of this section, the way it was reproduced in FE (→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins

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. 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. 117-118

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

in AF

in FE (→EE) & GE
..

It is the top arm of the  hairpin in AF, probably written first, that we consider to be reliable, since it emphasises the accenting nature of this mark. In FE (based on AF) the mark begins slightly later, which allows us to assume that it could have also been in GE that the engraver began the hairpin later in order to avoid an intersection with the bottom voice stem (two bars later the mark is present in GE only, hence without [AG] one cannot say whether Chopin repeated this notation there).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 120-122

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

in AF (→FE)

  in GE

No signs in EE

  suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we follow the marks of GE, in which the markings are more accurate in this fragment (pedalling in b. 117-121,  in b. 119). The only element we modify is the ending of the mark, since b. 121 closes a line in this edition; therefore, even if the notation of [AG] resembled the one of AF, the engraver could have considered the placement of a very short ending of a hairpin in a new line to be irrational. The version of AF (→FE) can be considered an equal variant.
In fact, the difference may be subtle – the mark of AF suggest the most emphasis on the crotchet ending b. 120, whereas in the version of GE such a local climax can be this chord or the minim in b. 121.
The missing mark in EE is probably an oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in EE