mUltimate Chopin

Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in FE

b. 109

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

Wedge in AF

No mark in FE (→EE) & GE
..

In the main text we include the wedge written in AF. The mark is very long and distinct, hence it is difficult to overlook it. Its absence in FE (→EE) may result from a misunderstanding – the engraver could have interpreted it as a crossed-out dot. See also b. 115.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Wedges

b. 109-110

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

Slur in AF & GE

No slur in FE (→EE)
..

Th lack of slur in FE (→EE) is undoubtedly the engraver's mistake. A similar mistake happened to Chopin in AF in b. 112.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Pointing slurs

b. 113

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

Long accent in AF

Short accent on quaver in FE (→EE)

Short accent in GE
..

In the main text we give the unequivocal long accent, written in AF. The short accents in the editions must be a result of misunderstanding the manuscripts. In FE (→EE) the mark was placed under the wrong chord by mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in FE

b. 115

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

Staccato dot in AF, GE & EE

No mark in FE
..

FE overlooked the staccato dot over the a quaver. The mark was added in EE, probably due to the dot under the L.H. octave and by analogy with, e.g. b. 111 and 113.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE

b. 116

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

Staccato dot in AF & GE

No mark in FE (→EE)
..

The missing staccato dot over the c1-e1 third must be a mistake by the engraver of FE (→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE