mUltimate Chopin

Op. 30, Mazurka in D♭ major

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. 57

composition: Op. 30, Mazurka in D♭ major

..

In the main text we add cautionary flats to G, g1-e2 and e1. Both accidentals in the R.H. were also added in GE, together with a  to g. By contrast, in EE the version of the L.H. chords is wrong – there are naturals to the first one, hence their pitch is as follows: g-b-e1. It is most probably a mistake consisting in adding accidentals present before seemingly identical chords 2 bars earlier.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in EE , GE revisions

b. 57

composition: Op. 30, Mazurka in D♭ major

in FC (→GE)

No indication in FE (→EE)
..

The absence of  in FE (→EE) could be Chopin's inadvertence (or the engraver's oversight). If this phrase (starting here) were to continue the previous dynamics ( from bar 49), the next  mark in bar 65 would be only a confirmation thereof, while the whole would be devoid of a dynamic contrast, so typical of opus 30, and particularly of this Mazurka. On the other hand, the absence of indications does not mean that one cannot play in a varied manner; it simply leaves the choice of performance details to the performer (to a greater extent). Therefore, the version without  may be considered an acceptable variant.
See also the next note.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 57

composition: Op. 30, Mazurka in D♭ major

No sign in FC (→GE)

in FE (→EE)

Our variant suggestion
..

In the main text we include the  hairpin present only in FE (→EE) in a variant form, since it is absent in the principal source, yet its authenticity is unquestionable; it can be considered a complement to the  indication.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 59

composition: Op. 30, Mazurka in D♭ major

No mark in FC (→GE)

Staccato dot in FE (→EE)
..

The easiest explanation for the missing staccato dot in FC (→GE) would be an oversight by the copyist – in the entire Mazurka a staccato mark on the 1st quaver in the bar is present in the vast majority of similar figures, thus constituting an element defining the Mazurka characteristic dance gesture.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of FC

b. 59

composition: Op. 30, Mazurka in D♭ major

..

In FE, in the top voice the double dotted crotchet is followed by a quaver. A comparison with analogous bar 63, and above all the FC (→GE) version, prove that the value of the last note is erroneous, since it is to be a semiquaver. An adequate correction was introduced in EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Rhythmic errors