Issues : Inaccuracies in FE
b. 18-22
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
The notation of the autographs does not explicitly reveal which accents were meant by Chopin in b. 18 and 22. According to us, in spite of them being similar – particularly in AF – to long accents, the marks are rather to be interpreted as short due to the rhythmic analogy with b. 20 and 24, which undoubtedly feature short accents. In b. 22 in AF one can see a crossed-out short accent over the chord on the 3rd beat of the bar. Both accents in AI are also placed over the chords, which, according to us, does not influence the performance in this context. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Corrections in A , Deletions in A |
|||||||||||||
b. 21
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we give the unequivocal long accent written in AI and FE. Short accents in the editions must be a result of a misunderstanding of the manuscripts. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE |
|||||||||||||
b. 29-31
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we give the most accurate indications of GE1, most probably corresponding to the notation of [AG]. The minor differences in the range of the signs in FE, EE and GE2 bear hallmarks of inaccuracies and have a negligible impact on the meaning of the marks. See also b. 31. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies |
|||||||||||||
b. 45-58
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
AI is devoid of pedalling markings in the entire fragment (until b. 91), which does not carry any information about the pedalling itself – Chopin simply did not mark it in the unfinished manuscript; consequently, we do not treat it on a par with the other variants. The marks are placed in AF before, under or after the 3rd crotchet of the bar, yet their placement is not explicitly linked to the harmonic content of the chords, e.g. marks after the 3rd crotchet are to be found in b. 48, 54 and 56, in which the chord does not change, as well as in b. 55, in which the chord changes on the 3rd beat to E major. FE and GE do not bear traces of intervention in this respect – they reproduced the notation of AF, yet inaccurately and with tendency to delay the pedal release. In the main text we reproduce the consistent notation of GE, in which the placement of the marks was standardised in a satisfactory manner, as far as the sound is concerned, both in the bars where the chord changes and where it does not. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in A |
|||||||||||||
b. 64-66
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
Just like in the preceding four bars, in the main text we follow the version of AF. In FE and EE it was reproduced with minor inaccuracies concerning the placement of the pedal release mark, out of which only the shift of in b. 64 in FE (erroneous) has an actual influence on the performance. A perceptible difference in sound also appears in b. 65, in which the longer pedal of GE may be considered an equal variant. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE |