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

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 1

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

Long accent in FC, contextual interpretation

Short accent in FE (→EE) & GE
..

It is uncertain whether the FC accent is to be interpreted as short or long. The latter, which we adopted, is supported by the length of the accented note, the kujawiak-like nature of the Mazurka and a similar (although slightly longer) accent in the Scherzo in B minor, Op. 31, bar 18, in which Chopin's preserved autograph contains a clear long accent. We reproduce the GE mark as a short accent, since marks of similar length are most common in GE (in entire opus 30), and nothing indicates that they were treated as something unusual.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 2-12

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

2 staccato dots in b. 10 in FC (→GE1)

22 dots in FE (→EE)

24 dots in GE2
..

The staccato dots in bars 2-4 and 10-12 were most probably added by Chopin in the stage of proofreading FE (→EE); other possibilities are them having been entered by Chopin into [A] after FC had already been finished, or them having been overlooked by Fontana, or a combination of two or even three of these factors. The absence of marks for the R.H. in bar 2 in FE (→EE) must be considered Chopin's inadvertence or a mistake by the engraver of FE. In the main text we include the dots of FE together with the two overlooked ones in bar 2. This version is also in GE2, perhaps on the basis of FE.
See also bars 38-48.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 7-15

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

No signs in FE (→EE)

in FC (→GE)
..

The  hairpin in bars 7 and 15 was almost certainly added to FC by Chopin. There is a similar situation in bar 18, 21 and 26 and in bars 28-30 and 43.

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

issues: Authentic corrections of FC

b. 16

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

Short accent on 2nd beat in FE (→EE)

Short accent on 3rd beat in FC (→GE)

Long accent suggested by the editors
..

A comparison with bar 24, in which all sources have an accent on the 3rd beat of the bar, allows us to consider the accent of FE (→EE) to be erroneous in the discussed bar. In the main text we give this mark the form of a long accent due to the clear long accent in FE present in a similar situation in bar 24, most probably repeated after [A].

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in FE

b. 18

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

No sign in FE (→EE)

in FC

 in GE
..

In the main text we give the  hairpin entered most probably by Chopin into FC. We consider the top arm to be reliable, corresponding to the range of an analogous mark in bar 26. In GE the mark was led to the c2 quaver ending the bar, which suggests a longer crescendo than the one resulting from the Chopinesque entry.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Authentic corrections of FC