mUltimate Chopin

Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 141-143

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

No slur in AI 

Slur from b in AF

Slur from c1 in FE (→EE) & GE
..

It is unclear whether Chopin wanted the slur to begin from the c1 quaver or the b crotchet. The fact that the slur in FE (→EE) starts earlier than in AF is most probably an inaccuracy, which suggests that the slur of GE, of the same range, can also be inaccurate. However, the shape of the slur of GE1 shows that its initial fragment was being corrected in print, perhaps at Chopin's request, hence this is the version we give in the main text.
AI is devoid of slurs in these and next bars (until b. 152), which together fill the last line of the 2nd page of AI. Therefore, it is Chopin's inadvertence – on the next page the R.H. slurring is continued in this autograph.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of GE

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