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. 142-145

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

No indication in AF (→FE→EE)

cresc. in GE
..

The cresc. indications in b. 142 and 145 most probably come from [AG] (→GE). One could assume that in the autograph the indications were overlaid on a hairpin –  – a combination Chopin would willingly use.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 143-144

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

No slur in AI & GE

Slur in AF (literal reading→FE→EE)

Slur in AF, contextual interpretation
..

The slur in AF ends between the semiquaver and the crotchet. The ending of the slur is poorly visible against the middle line of the stave; it is likely that Chopin ran out of ink and could not drag the slur to the crotchet that ends the motif. Due to the above reason, in the main text we suggest a musically more natural interpretation of this notation (cf. b. 147). We consider the absence of the slur in GE to be Chopin's inadvertence or the engraver's mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 144

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

..

In the main text we add a cautionary  before a.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 145-147

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

No slurs in AI

2 slurs in AF & GE

2 slurs in FE

Slur in bar 147 in EE
..

The longer slur of FE may result from Chopin's proofreading, which is indicated by its absence in EE. Even if this was the case, according to us, it does not have to mean that Chopin wanted to change the concordant slurring of AF and GE, since the composer could have encompassed with a slur the entire phrase without noticing the slur in b. 147, which was moved under the stave in FE (it also cannot be ruled out that the engraver of FE misinterpreted this detail in the Chopinesque proof entry).
The missing slurs in AI are most probably an oversight – see b. 141-143.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

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