Issues : Placement of markings
b. 10-12
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
We reproduce the short hairpins in b. 10 and 12, whose nature is clearly the one of long accents, after AF (in FE and EE they were moved under the R.H. part). The absence of these marks in GE is probably an oversight of Chopin: in analogous b. 102-104 it is precisely GE that is the only source containing those marks. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Placement of markings , FE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 22-23
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
Just like in b. 18-19 and 20-21, in the main text we give the slur added to the version prepared for print – AF and [AG] (→GE). The slur in FE (→EE) was placed on the side of the noteheads, which made it look like a tie of a. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Errors in FE , Placement of markings , Tie or slur |
|||||||||||
b. 123-124
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In the main text we give the undoubtedly authentic version of AF (→FE→EE). In turn, the authenticity of the version of GE, although likely, is uncertain – it may result from a routine revision consisting in moving the slur to the side of the noteheads (in GE the stems point downwards). There are numerous examples of such changes in Chopin's pieces, cf., e.g. the Mazurka in G Minor, Op. 24 No. 1, b. 3 or the Nocturne in D Major, Op. 27 No. 2, b. 76-77. Therefore, it is possible that the notation of [AG] was no different from AF. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Placement of markings , Omitted correction of an analogous place |
|||||||||||
b. 173
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In AF the accent in this bar is shorter than in the next ones. A comparison with AI shows that it is almost certainly an inaccuracy, which, however, could have influenced the interpretation of this and next marks in FE (→EE). GE also features a short accent, which does not have to mean that the notation of [AG] was also ambiguous. The issue of placement of this mark, between the staves, is slightly more difficult, and we discuss it in more detail in the next bars. In this bar we place the mark in the main text in the middle, in accordance with AI. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Placement of markings |
|||||||||||
b. 174-176
|
composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor
..
In both preserved autographs the accents are clearly closer to the bottom stave. According to us, it does not mean that it is only the two bottom notes of the chords performed by the L.H. that should be accented, which could have attenuated this dramatic culmination in dynamics. (Chopin might have wanted to emphasise g1, to which the bass voice in the preceding progression was led.) Due to the same reason, it is difficult to assume that the accents under the R.H. part visible in GE could correspond to Chopin's intention; however, it is certain that the notation of [AG] did not suggest that the L.H. be accented. In this situation, in the main text we place the accents in the middle, in accordance with FE (→EE). AI and AF feature long accents, which was not taken into account in any of the editions. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Long accents , Placement of markings |