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
Slurs
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Slurs

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.

Learn more »

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

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

b. 30-31

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

No slur in AI & AF (→FE→EE)

Slur in GE
..

The b1-c2 slur probably originates from a later completion of the manuscripts' notation, which is indicated by a comparison with analogous b. 122-123. Chopin most likely added a slur here only in [AG] (→GE) and the second time – only in AF (→FE→EE). Such complementary corrections suggest that there was a stage – probably short – in which both autographs were being retouched in parallel.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 31-32

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

Slur in AI & AF (→FE→EE)

No slur in GE
..

The missing f1-g1 slur in GE is most probably an oversight. Cf. similar inaccuracies in the notation of other slurs in these motifs.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 32-33

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

Slur from bar 33 in AI & GE

Slur from bar 32 in AF (→FE→EE)
..

AI is lacking in the beginning of the R.H. slur at the end of b. 32, which closes the line. The slur that begins in b. 33 is ambiguous – it may suggest continuation, yet we assume that it starts only just in this bar. A similar situation can be found in GE, in which the slur also begins along with a new line in b. 33. In both cases, an inaccuracy of notation may be suspected, hence in the main text we give the slur of AF (→FE→EE), confirmed by the concordant version of all the sources in analog. b. 124-125.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Uncertain slur continuation

b. 33

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

Slur in bar 36-37 in AI

Continuous slur in AF

Slur in bars 33-34 in FE (→EE), literal reading

2 slurs in GE

Our alternative suggestion
..

In the main text we give the slur of AF, which is unquestionable in terms of sources and style. As an alternative, we suggest a contextual interpretation of GE, based on a comparison with analogous b. 125-129. AI presents an unfinished notation, while the inaccurate version of FE (→EE) is probably incomplete, since the slur at the end of the line (b. 34) points to continuation, which does not take place in the next bar.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources