mUltimate Chopin

Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in EE

b. 68-69

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

Slurs in AI, probable interpretation

Continuous slur in AI, possible interpretation

Slurs in AF (contextual interpretation→FE) & GE1

Slurs in AF (literal reading) & GE2

Slur to bar 68 in EE
..

In AI the ending of the slur in b. 68 (at the end of the line) suggests continuation; however, a flat slur begins in the new line from the 1st note of b. 69, in which one can see either a continuation of the preceding one or a new slur. The beginning of the slur in b. 69 in AF is also unclear – a flat line gradually emerges over the b1 minim, hence one can assume that Chopin started writing it earlier. The slurs of FE were probably corrected from a continuous slur, and, although the final notation is imprecise, the division of the slur between the bars is unquestionable. The same slurs are included in GE1, and this is the version we give in the main text.
EE are devoid of the R.H. slurs from b. 69 to b. 92, which is probably an oversight. See the notes in b. 77 and 92.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 111-116

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

Staccato dots in bars 112, 115 & 116 in AF (→FE)

Dots in bars 115 & 116 in EE

Dots in bars 111 & 116 in GE1

Dot in bar 116 in GE2

Dots in bars 111-112 & 115-116, our alternative suggestion
..

In the main text we include the staccato dots under the bass notes in b. 112, 115 and 116 on the basis of AF (→FE). As an alternative solution, we suggest taking into account the dot of GE1 in b. 111 too. The omission of some of the dots in EE and GE2 is an oversight of the engravers.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , Errors in GE

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

b. 148-152

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

No slurs in AI

5 slurs in AF (→FE) & GE

3 slurs in b. 148 & 151-152 in EE
..

AI is devoid of slurs in these bars, which is most probably Chopin's inadvertence – see b. 141-143. The missing slurs in b. 149-150 in EE is a mistake of the engraver of FE (corrected in the finished FE) or EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 170

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

..

The last R.H. bottom voice crotchet in EE is a1, which is a mistake. It was most probably EE in which this patent Terzverschreibung was committed, since FE does not reveal traces of corrections in this place.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , Terzverschreibung error