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
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 90-92

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

in AI

 in AF

in FE (→EE)

in GE
..

In the main text we give the  hairpin after AF, since the range of the mark in b. 92 seems to be related to the accent on the culminant g2 minim, present only in this autograph; it may also be related to the dotted rhythm preceding the minim (cf. the notation of AI). The longer mark of GE, which most probably reproduces the notation of [AG], may be considered an equal variant.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins

b. 91

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

No mark in AI & GE

Staccato dot in AF (→FE→EE)
..

It seems highly unlikely that Chopin would have forgone a staccato dot while writing [AG] (→GE), hence we give it directly in the main text. Its absence in GE may be explained by a mistake of the engraver, Chopin's inadvertence or by the possibility of the dot having been added in AF after [AG] had been finished.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 92

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

No mark in AI & GE

 in AF, literal reading

Long accent in AF (contextual interpretation→FE)

Short accent in EE
..

In AF the long accent under the culminant g2 minim reaches as far as the beginning of the next bar; therefore, taking into account the preceding  and the following , one may also interpret it as a diminuendo mark. However, a comparison with the unequivocal long accents in b. 94, 98 suggests that the mark should rather be interpreted as an accent.

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

issues: Long accents , EE inaccuracies

b. 94-95

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

Long accent in AF (contextual interpretation) & GE

 in AF (literal reading→FE→EE)
..

The mark in AF, although it reaches the beginning of b. 95, must have been meant as a long accent. It is indicated by the notation of GE and comparison with analogous b. 2. In FE (→EE) the mark was reproduced as a  hairpin.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 98

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

 in AF, literal reading

Long accent in FE & GE

Short accent in EE
..

We reproduce the mark in AF, longer than in b. 94, as a  hairpin, in spite of the fact that the arguments put forward there remain in force also here – the mark must have been meant as a long accent, which we, hence, give in the main text. FE feature a long accent in b. 98 and another accent or a hairpin in b. 99, which results from the transition to a new page in this edition.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions