mUltimate Chopin

Op. 30 No. 1, 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
Slurs
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Slurs

b. 24-25

composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor

No markings in FE (→EE)

Slur & dot in FC (→GE)
..

The slur and staccato dot were most probably added to FC by Chopin (together with the pedal marks in this bar), and we include them as such in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FC

b. 27-29

composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor

3 slurs in FC, literal reading

2 slurs in FC, possible interpretation

Continuous slur in FE (→EE)

3 slurs in GE

2 slurs, our alternative suggestion
..

The clear difference in slurring between FE and FC (in the absence of visible traces of corrections in any of these sources) suggests that the [A] notation (perhaps vague) could have been misinterpreted. The suggested variants encompass 3 possible interpretations of the FC notation (including the GE version based on this copy), the FE (→EE) version and the version based on an assumption that the [A] slurs between bars 28-29 were misinterpreted in FE. According to us, each of these versions may correspond to the [A] notation. The continuous nature of the melodic line is an argument for the FE version, which we therefore suggest in the main text. The structural division determined by the harmonic course and the change in the melody motifs justifies the last of the given variants. The contextual interpretation of FC could also be considered musically justified – e1 at the beginning of bar 28, naturally ending the previous phrase, could also be regarded as a beginning of a new thought, which, to a certain extent, is confirmed by the complementary pair of dynamic hairpins and the L.H. slur, linking this bar to the next phrase.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FC , Tenuto slurs

b. 44-45

composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor

Slur in FE (→EE)

Slurs in FC (→GE)

Slurs suggested by the editors
..

The slur encompassing the sequence of thirds in bar 44 was added to FC almost certainly by Chopin. However, unlike in bars 8-9, Chopin did not shorten the top slur, which also reaches the end of the bar. According to us, the reason could have been to avoid an excessive number of deletions, hence in the main text we suggest the same notation as in bars 8-9.

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

issues: Authentic corrections of FC

b. 53

composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor

No slurs in FC (→GE)

Slurs in FE (→EE)
..

We assume that Chopin added the slurs encompassing the last motif while proofreading FE. Other possibilities (less likely, according to us) could be the slurs having been added still in #A after FC had already been finished or them having been overlooked by the copyist.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE