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

b. 19-20

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

Slur in AI & GE

No slur in AF (→FE→EE)
..

The missing slur must be Chopin's oversight in AF (→FE→EE). The relevant slurs are present in all analogous places.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of A

b. 19

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

..

In the main text we add a cautionary  before d2.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 19

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

Short accent in AI & AF (literal reading→FE→EE) & GE

Long accent, possible interpretation of AI & AF
..

The notation of the autographs does not clearly reveal which accent was meant by Chopin here. According to us, in spite of its graphic resemblance to a short accent, a long accent is more likely due to, above all, Chopinesque proofreading of analogous b. 115 as well as due to a very similar situation in the Mazurka in A Major, Op. 24 No. 3, b. 5, 9 and analog., where Chopin wrote long accents in three out of the four written-out places. However, we recommend a short accent as an alternative solution.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 19-24

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

Staccato dots in bars 19, 20 & 23 in AI

Dots in bars 20 & 24 in AF

Dot in bar 24 in FE (→EE)

No marks in GE

Dots in bars 20, 23 & 24 suggested by the editors

Dots in bars 19-20 & 23-24
..

At the beginning of b. 19, 20, 23 and 24, the L.H. staccato dots appear irregularly in the sources. In the main text we give both dots present in AF both here (b. 20 and 24) and in the repetition of this fragment (b. 112 and 116). In addition, these are the only places in which the indication of staccato requires a mark, since the bass note does not fall together with the R.H. note provided with a dot. In the remaining places, particularly in the situations in which the R.H. notes are written together with the L.H. on the bottom stave (b. 19 and 21), the marks over the R.H. part also refer to the L.H. Due to the fact that Chopin moved the a quaver to the top stave in b. 23 in AF, we also include the dot in this bar written in AI (in AF, it is present in analogous b. 115). Our alternative suggestion takes into consideration all dots written in these bars in the preserved autographs.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 20-24

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

Quavers & rests in AI & AF (→FE→EE)

Crotchets in GE
..

In b. 20 and 24, AI initially contained the original concept of the L.H. part:  and .
Chopin then crossed out the rests and the semiquavers and replaced them with quaver rests, which is preserved in AF (→FE→EE). The notation of GE, in which Chopin simplified it even more, seems to be the latest in this situation. The conclusion is confirmed by analogous b. 112 and 116, in which all sources feature crotchets only.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections of AI