mUltimate Chopin

Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 109

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

Long accent in AF, contextual interpretation

in FE (→EE)

Shifted short accent in GE1

Short accent in GE2
..

The accent in AF is quite short in this bar, hence it is its shape and context that make us consider it a long accent. The presence of a significantly longer mark in FE (→EE) – such as in analogous b. 17 – points to a possible intervention of a reviser or perhaps Chopin himself. A change performed on Chopin's order would confirm the mark to be a long accent. The mark in GE1 was placed inaccurately, so it is not entirely certain which beat of the bar it concerns.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 115

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

Long accent in Af, probable interpretation

2 long accents in FE

L.H. short accent in EE

Short accent in GE
..

The two accents written in AF in analogous b. 19 and 111 have the characteristics that are frequently encountered in the notation of short accents – the mark tilted upwards and a relatively big angle between the arms. However, the mark in the discussed bar is less characteristic in this respect; therefore, we assume that it is a long accent. In FE (→EE) it was placed under the L.H. chord by mistake, which Chopin then corrected in the last stage of proofreading by adding a second accent under the R.H. triplet. According to us, the added accent – certainly long – tips the balance in favour of long accents in all analogous bars. The short accent in GE may be considered an alternative version. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 124-125

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

Continuous slur in Af

2 slurs in GE, literal reading

Contextual interpretation of GE, our alternative suggestion
..

In the main text we give the continuous slur of AF, reproduced in FE and EE with minor inaccuracies related to the transition to a new line, starting from b. 125 – in EE the slur in b. 124 was led to the g crotchet only, whereas in FE the continuation of the slur on a new line is placed under the stave. The separated slurs of GE may be authentic – it seems that Chopin was gradually completing the slurring of the L.H. part while writing [AG], and it is AF that presents the final result of this process (in GE2 the slur ending in b. 124 was reproduced inaccurately, as a result of which it seems that its ending falls on a). The slur that begins in b. 125, perhaps added at the stage of proofreading of GE1, was placed under the stave – probably to avoid layout complications in b. 128. Therefore, as an alternative solution we suggest a slur of the same range, yet led over the tenor voice, to which it refers.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 127-129

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

Slur in AF (→FE)

Slur in EE

3 slurs in GE

2 slurs in GE, contextual interpretation

2 slurs suggested by the editors
..

The notation of the tenor voice slurs eventually found its shape in AF. Probably due to layout complications in b. 128, the slurring of the remaining sources is incomplete or inaccurate:

  • in FE the slur of AF was placed under the stave, probably to facilitate the drawing of the curve (we reproduce this notation in the graphic transcription – the version 'transcription');
  • in b. 127 EE continue the slur over the tenor voice, yet in b. 128 it is also the alto voice that is encompassed with it;
  • in GE, there are two slurs in the tenor voice – the continuation of the slur from the previous bars, led under the stave, and the original d-G slur in b. 128-129. It is probably a result of a later added phrase mark, perhaps only just at the stage of proofreading of GE1. The original slur, encompassing the last two notes c1-b in b. 128-129, is also preserved in the alto voice.

In the main text we give the slur of AF, completed with a slur for the alto voice, written in this autograph in analogous b. 35-37.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies

b. 131-132

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

Slur in bars 132-133 in AF

Longer slur in bars 132-133 in FE

Slur in bars 131-133 in GE

Slur in bar 132 in EE

Our alternative suggestion
..

Just like in b. 39-42, in the main text we give the slur of AF, which emphasises the a1-b1 step under b. 132-133 as the ending of the tenor voice. This slur – not entirely clear – was initially interpreted in FE as a slur combining the d1-a1 crotchets. This version is preserved in EE, whereas in FE Chopin prolonged this erroneous slur to a version tantamount to the longer slur of GE. According to us, this ad hoc correction does not have to mean that the composer definitely abandoned the slur of AF; in turn, it suggests that Chopin, to the very end, did not consider any of them to be final. The slur of GE, indicating the actual articulation of the L.H. part, may be then considered an equal variant. Taking into account Chopin's hesitation, as an alternative version we also suggest combining the relevant indications of both versions into one slur.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Authentic corrections of FE