mUltimate Chopin

Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 37

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

..

The cautionary naturals before b1 and a1 were added while proofreading FE (→EE). The former is also in GE, perhaps also added at the proofreading stage. They are absent in the preserved autographs.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , FE revisions

b. 68-69

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

Slurs in AI, probable interpretation

Continuous slur in AI, possible interpretation

Slurs in AF (contextual interpretation→FE) & GE1

Slurs in AF (literal reading) & GE2

Slur to bar 68 in EE
..

In AI the ending of the slur in b. 68 (at the end of the line) suggests continuation; however, a flat slur begins in the new line from the 1st note of b. 69, in which one can see either a continuation of the preceding one or a new slur. The beginning of the slur in b. 69 in AF is also unclear – a flat line gradually emerges over the b1 minim, hence one can assume that Chopin started writing it earlier. The slurs of FE were probably corrected from a continuous slur, and, although the final notation is imprecise, the division of the slur between the bars is unquestionable. The same slurs are included in GE1, and this is the version we give in the main text.
EE are devoid of the R.H. slurs from b. 69 to b. 92, which is probably an oversight. See the notes in b. 77 and 92.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , Inaccurate slurs in A , GE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 89-93

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

 in bar 91 in AI

    in AF

    in FE & GE1

 in bar 89 in EE

    in GE2
..

The  mark in b. 91 is the only pedalling marking in AI. The four-bar pedal in the later sources develops and specifies it, although the placement of the  mark is unclear due to the differences between the sources. According to us, in this context the individual sources are rather a result of inaccuracies of notation than of different concepts. In the main text we take into account the message conveyed by the  mark written by Chopin in AF – before the 1st note of b. 93, i.e. at the end of b. 92. At the same time, it is a graphical compromise between the notation of AF and FE & GE1 (coincidentally, it corresponds to the notation of GE2). 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 158

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

..

Both autographs are lacking in the  restoring e on the 3rd beat of the bar, which is a patent oversight. The accidental was added in FE (→EE), which could have been performed by the reviser. It is also present in GE, and the layout of the accidentals before this dyad in GE1 also points to the fact that the sign was added in print (cf. the correct layout in GE2). 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors of A , FE revisions

b. 160

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

..

AI is lacking in a  restoring f1 on the 2nd beat of the bar; in turn, it features a superfluous  before c1. All the remaining sources contain the necessary sign before f1, yet it is only GE in which there is no  before c1.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals