mUltimate Chopin

Op. 30 No. 4, 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. 41

composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor

No indication in FC (→GE)

in tempo in FE

a tempo in EE
..

The in tempo indication was most probably added as part of the Chopinesque proofreading of FE. There is a similar situation in bar 57. The change of the preposition from in to a was an arbitrary decision of the engraver/reviser of EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 43-44

composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor

Continuous slur in FC & FE (→EE)
..

The separated slurs of GE are a missed interpretation of the incoherent notation of FC, in which the slur at the end of the line (bar 43) does not point to continuation, while the slur in bar 44 does. We consider a continuous slur (as in FE) to be the text of FC.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FC , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 46-48

composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor

in FC (→GE)

in b. 48 in FE (→EE)

Our variant suggestion
..

Such differences, sometimes significant, in the notation of pedal release can be found in Chopin's pieces a few times, mainly in the context of dissonant melodic elements overlapping the dying sound of the bass note, e.g. in the Barcarolle, Op. 60, bar 115 or in the Prelude in C minor, Op. 45, bars 5-6 and analog. On the basis thereof, one could assume that Chopin meant gradual pedal release, the so-called diminuendo pedal, in the case of which it is impossible to define the exact moment the pedal should be released (in other similar situations Chopin did not put a  mark after a  mark at all, e.g. in the Nocturne in F minor, Op. 48 No. 2, bars 112-114). Taking into account the above, in the main text we give both source  marks, regarding them not as an alternative, but as extreme possibilities between which one can look for one's own sonically satisfying solution. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 47

composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor

d2 in FC (→GE) & FED

b1 in FE (→EE)
..

The version of FE (→EE) must be erroneous (a typical Terzverschreibung), which is confirmed by the correction in FED, most probably coming from Chopin.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Errors in FE , Annotations in FED , Terzverschreibung error

b. 48

composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor

Quaver & quaver rest in FC (contextual interpretation→GE1) & FE (→EE)

Dotted quaver & semiquaver rest in GE2
..

In FC the last L.H. f1 note is a dotted quaver, as a result of which the bar includes one semiquaver too many. The mistake was corrected in GE1 to a version that is also in FE (→EE); therefore, we give it in the main text. The GE2 version is an alternative revision of the erroneous FC notation, not devoid of logic with respect to the R.H. rhythm, but almost certainly inauthentic.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Errors of FC