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. 109

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

Long accent in AF, contextual interpretation

in FE (→EE)

Shifted short accent in GE1

Short accent in GE2
..

The accent in AF is quite short in this bar, hence it is its shape and context that make us consider it a long accent. The presence of a significantly longer mark in FE (→EE) – such as in analogous b. 17 – points to a possible intervention of a reviser or perhaps Chopin himself. A change performed on Chopin's order would confirm the mark to be a long accent. The mark in GE1 was placed inaccurately, so it is not entirely certain which beat of the bar it concerns.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 109

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

Wedge in AF

No mark in FE (→EE) & GE
..

In the main text we include the wedge written in AF. The mark is very long and distinct, hence it is difficult to overlook it. Its absence in FE (→EE) may result from a misunderstanding – the engraver could have interpreted it as a crossed-out dot. See also b. 115.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Wedges

b. 110-114

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

Long accents in AF, literal reading

Short accents in FE (→EE) & GE
..

In b. 110 and 114 Chopin initially wrote short accents over the R.H. chords in AF; eventually, he wrote the marks between the staves. However, the new marks are longer and narrower, which makes them resemble long accents. According to us, Chopin could have adjusted the font of the marks to the small space between the chords of both hands. We consider both interpretations to be possible, yet to the main text we choose short accents, compliant with those present in rhythmically analogous b. 112 and 116. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 111-116

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

Staccato dots in bars 112, 115 & 116 in AF (→FE)

Dots in bars 115 & 116 in EE

Dots in bars 111 & 116 in GE1

Dot in bar 116 in GE2

Dots in bars 111-112 & 115-116, our alternative suggestion
..

In the main text we include the staccato dots under the bass notes in b. 112, 115 and 116 on the basis of AF (→FE). As an alternative solution, we suggest taking into account the dot of GE1 in b. 111 too. The omission of some of the dots in EE and GE2 is an oversight of the engravers.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , Errors in GE

b. 112

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

No markings in AF (→FE→EE)

Slur & staccato dot in GE
..

The lack of both markings – a slur and a staccato dot – is undoubtedly Chopin's oversight in AF (→FE→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in A