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. 64-65

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

F-G slur in AI

E-G slur in AF (→FE→EE)

No slur in GE
..

In the main text we include the slur of AF (→FE→EE) that emphasises the bass line. The absence of the mark seems to be an oversight of the engraver of GE1 or even of Chopin in [AG]. The shorter slur in AI presents a primitive, sketchy version. It is anyway the only L.H. slur on this page of AI (b. 57-152).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 64-65

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

Separate slurs in AI

Continuous slur in AF (→FE→EE) & GE
..

The division of the slur in AI could have resulted from the uncertainty about the combination of b. 64-65 and about the final shape of the melody in b. 65-68 – in the initial version of the L.H. part, there was no transitional F note, while in the alternative version of the melody, b. 65 opens with a repeated e2. Therefore, the combination of b. 64-65 in the rejected versions is not as smooth as in the final one.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 65

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

No slur in AI & GE

Slur over chords in AF (→FE→EE)
..

The missing slur in GE seems to be an oversight of the engraver – in this edition L.H. slurs appear from b. 66, opening a new line, yet both slurs in b. 64-65 were overlooked.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 66-75

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

..

In these bars, AI does not contain a single L.H. motivic/articulation slur, which results from the working nature of this autograph – cf. b. 64-65.
In AF the slurs in b. 70-71 and 73-75 (as well as 65) illustrate how inaccurately written Chopin's slurs could be – their range does not raise any doubts here only thanks to the rests surrounding the motifs encompassed by the slurs.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Embracing slurs

b. 68-69

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

Slurs in AI, probable interpretation

Continuous slur in AI, possible interpretation

Slurs in AF (contextual interpretation→FE) & GE1

Slurs in AF (literal reading) & GE2

Slur to bar 68 in EE
..

In AI the ending of the slur in b. 68 (at the end of the line) suggests continuation; however, a flat slur begins in the new line from the 1st note of b. 69, in which one can see either a continuation of the preceding one or a new slur. The beginning of the slur in b. 69 in AF is also unclear – a flat line gradually emerges over the b1 minim, hence one can assume that Chopin started writing it earlier. The slurs of FE were probably corrected from a continuous slur, and, although the final notation is imprecise, the division of the slur between the bars is unquestionable. The same slurs are included in GE1, and this is the version we give in the main text.
EE are devoid of the R.H. slurs from b. 69 to b. 92, which is probably an oversight. See the notes in b. 77 and 92.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation