mUltimate Chopin

Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 124-125

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

No sign in AF (→FE→EE)

in GE

 suggested by the editors
..

In GE the short  hairpin was most probably reproduced inaccurately, since the mark clearly refers to the R.H. part and seems to command crescendo at the beginning of the chord, which lasts the entire bar. Therefore, it is either a reversed accent or – which is more likely – a  emphasising the secundal step under b. 124-125. It is the last interpretation that we suggest in the main text. A similar marking of such motifs, often misinterpreted by engravers, can be found in Chopin's pieces on a number of occasions, e.g. in the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, II mov., b. 84. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 141-143

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

  in AF (→FE)

  in GE

 in EE
..

In the main text we give the   hairpins after AF (→FE), in which they are compliant with all markings of the sources in analogous b. 145-147. It suggests that the marks of GE in the discussed bars may be inaccurate. The absence of the second mark in EE is most probably a mistake.
In AI such markings are absent for the rest of the Mazurka.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 159-160

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

No sign in AI & GE

in Af

in FE (→EE)
..

In the main text we give the  mark written in AF, in which the dynamic markings in this fragment – see the note in the previous bar – are more detailed as a whole than in GE. However, the exact range of the sign may raise doubts – its arms are of different length, while in an analogous situation in b. 167-168 a respective mark reaches the 2nd beat of b. 168 only, which seems to be more natural in this context (locally, f1 is the topmost note of the melody, suspension and syncopation). Such a range of this  mark, slightly shorter, is featured in FE (→EE), yet it may result from the engraver's inaccuracy.

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

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in A

b. 160

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

No mark in AI, GE & EE

in AF

Long accent in FE
..

The mark in AF, in spite of its excessive size, could be considered a long accent if it were not for an even longer mark in analogous b. 168. Due to this reason, in the main text we keep the form of this mark written in AF, which, according to Chopin, could have been supposed to emphasise not only the minim, but also its modulating continuation. The absence of the mark in EE probably means that it was overlooked in the proof copy of FE. Then the long accent printed in the finished FE would be a result of Chopin's proofreading. A similar situation can be found in b. 168.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 166

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

No sign in AI & GE

 in AF, possible interpretation

 in AF (contextual interpretation→FE→EE)
..

The range of the  hairpin raises doubts in AF due to its arms of different length. A comparison with analogous b. 158, in which the range of  is confirmed by the concordant version of AF and GE, points to the top, shorter arm as the more reliable one. This is how it was reproduced in FE (→EE).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Inaccuracies in A