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

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 19

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

Short accent in AI & AF (literal reading→FE→EE) & GE

Long accent, possible interpretation of AI & AF
..

The notation of the autographs does not clearly reveal which accent was meant by Chopin here. According to us, in spite of its graphic resemblance to a short accent, a long accent is more likely due to, above all, Chopinesque proofreading of analogous b. 115 as well as due to a very similar situation in the Mazurka in A Major, Op. 24 No. 3, b. 5, 9 and analog., where Chopin wrote long accents in three out of the four written-out places. However, we recommend a short accent as an alternative solution.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 19-24

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

Staccato dots in bars 19, 20 & 23 in AI

Dots in bars 20 & 24 in AF

Dot in bar 24 in FE (→EE)

No marks in GE

Dots in bars 20, 23 & 24 suggested by the editors

Dots in bars 19-20 & 23-24
..

At the beginning of b. 19, 20, 23 and 24, the L.H. staccato dots appear irregularly in the sources. In the main text we give both dots present in AF both here (b. 20 and 24) and in the repetition of this fragment (b. 112 and 116). In addition, these are the only places in which the indication of staccato requires a mark, since the bass note does not fall together with the R.H. note provided with a dot. In the remaining places, particularly in the situations in which the R.H. notes are written together with the L.H. on the bottom stave (b. 19 and 21), the marks over the R.H. part also refer to the L.H. Due to the fact that Chopin moved the a quaver to the top stave in b. 23 in AF, we also include the dot in this bar written in AI (in AF, it is present in analogous b. 115). Our alternative suggestion takes into consideration all dots written in these bars in the preserved autographs.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 20

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

Staccato dot in AI

No mark in AF (→FE→EE) & GE
..

The staccato dot was repeated neither in the remaining sources nor in any of analogous b. 24, 112 and 116. Therefore, we assume that Chopin forwent this mark, and we do not include it in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 21

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

Long accent in AI & AF

Short accent in FE (→EE) & GE
..

In the main text we give the unequivocal long accent written in AI and FE. Short accents in the editions must be a result of a misunderstanding of the manuscripts.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 23

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

No mark in sources

Long accent suggested by the editors

Short accent, our alternative suggestion
..

The missing mark in the discussed bar is most probably Chopin's inadvertence. In the main text we suggest a long accent, in accordance with Chopinesque proofreading in analogous b. 115. The alternative suggestion results from the ambiguous notation of the autographs in similar b. 19 and 111.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents