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
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 27

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

Fingering written into FES

No teaching fingering
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES

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. 28-30

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

  in FC

No signs in FE (→EE)

  in GE
..

Chopin added the   hairpins in FC, as was the case with the majority of the remaining dynamic marks in this Mazurka. GE partially adjusted the range of the marks to full bars, which in this case was justified to a certain extent, due to the transition to a new page starting from bar 29.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 34

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

Dashes till b. 34 in FC (→GE)

Dashes till b. 33 in FE (→EE)
..

It is only FC (→GE) that indicates that the diminuendo should be continued to the end of bar 34 – the dashes marking the range of the indication in FE end in bar 33. It is difficult to say how this difference (of minor importance) came into being; in the main text we give the version of the principal source, that is FC.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 37

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

in tempo in FE

No indication in FC (→GE)

a tempo in EE
..

The in tempo indication was most probably added as part of the Chopinesque proofreading of FE. A possible oversight by the copyist seems less likely, since a similar difference appears twice more in the Mazurka in C minor No. 4 (bars 41 and 57). The change of preposition from in to a was an arbitrary decision of the engraver/reviser of EE. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE