mUltimate Chopin

Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 135-137

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

No marks in AF (→FE→EE)

Staccato dots in GE
..

The missing staccato dots on the 2nd and 3rd beats of b. 135 and 137 are most probably an inaccuracy of AF (→FE→EE) – cf. b. 11 and 103. The oversight of these marks could have provoked a manifest slurring error – see the note in the next bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in A

b. 136-137

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

Slur in bar 137 in AF

Slur in FE (→EE)

Slur to bar 137 in GE
..

The slur of AF is almost certainly Chopin's mistake, which is indicated by a comparison with all analogous figures – b. 10-11, 12-13, 102-103, 104-105 and 134-135. The version of FE (→EE) is most probably a result of an inaccurate interpretation of the slur of AF, written with a flourish (like in b. 134-135).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors of A

b. 137-139

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

No pedalling in AI & GE

Pedalling in AF

Pedalling in FE (→EE)
..

The absence of pedalling markings in GE must be considered an inaccuracy in these bars. All similar phrases – b. 11-12, 103-104 and 135-136 – are provided with such pedalling markings at least in one of the authentic sources; whenever discrepancies occur, they can most likely be considered an inaccuracy. In the discussed place the reason could have been, e.g. an oversight of the engraver of GE1 – these bars open a new line, and pedalling markings are absent in GE also in b. 139-140. In FE (→EE) the  mark was placed inaccurately, probably due to the notation of AF, which can be misleading at first sight.
In AI pedalling markings do not appear for the rest of the piece.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 137-140

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

No upper part in AI

Upper part, notation AF

Upper part, notation FE

Upper part, notation GE

Upper part, notation EE
..

In AI these bars follow b. 101-104 and continue the R.H. homophonic texture present in these bars. Apart from the missing additional voice over the quaver figuration, the differences with respect to the final version include:

  • the regular b1-c2-d2 sequence at the beginning of b. 137,
  • the initial version of the 2nd and 3rd beats of b. 140 – a1-e1-d1-c1.

Discussion of the differences in the notation of the two-part fragments in b. 138-140 – see the note to b. 134 and 136.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 138-140

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

Continuous slur in AI & AF (→FE→EE)

Separate slurs in GE
..

In both preserved autographs the slur is led to the end of b. 140. The version of GE, in which each of b. 139-140 is provided with a separate slur, most probably corresponds to the notation of [AG], and we give it in the main text as probably being the latest.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations