mUltimate Chopin

Op. 50 No. 3, 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
Rhythm
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Rhythm

b. 92

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

Quavers in AI & GE

Dotted rhythm in AF (→FE→EE)
..

In the main text we give the dotted rhythm of AF (→FE→EE), whose nature corresponds to a Chopinesque improvement. The g2 minim preceded by two quavers somewhat fades into the wave of the crescendo, which reaches its climax thereupon. In turn, preceded by a dotted rhythm, it additionally becomes an important signal, suggesting a breakthrough in the course of music. It seems that the details of the dynamic indications correspond to this difference, i.e. the range of the  hairpin and the presence/absence of a long accent.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Dotted or even rhythm

b. 95-96

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

c2 repeated in AI & AF (→FE→EE)

c2 tied in GE
..

Just like in b. 3-4, in the main text we give the version with tied c2, most probably coming from [AG] (→GE).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 123-124

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

d2 repeated in AF (→FE→EE)

d2 tied in GE
..

In the main text we give the undoubtedly authentic version of AF (→FE→EE). In turn, the authenticity of the version of GE, although likely, is uncertain – it may result from a routine revision consisting in moving the slur to the side of the noteheads (in GE the stems point downwards). There are numerous examples of such changes in Chopin's pieces, cf., e.g. the Mazurka in G Minor, Op. 24 No. 1, b. 3 or the Nocturne in D Major, Op. 27 No. 2, b. 76-77. Therefore, it is possible that the notation of [AG] was no different from AF.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Placement of markings , Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 134-136

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

Upper part, notation in AF

Upper part, notation in FE

Upper part, notation in GE

Upper part, notation in EE
..

In b. 134 and 136, the Chopinesque manner of writing stems always on the right-hand side of the noteheads contributed to an incomprehensible reproduction of the two-part notation of AF by the engraver of FE and, consequently, the totally erroneous notation of EE. In the main text we give the simplest and probably the latest notation introduced by Chopin in [AG] (→GE).
Similarly in b. 138-140.

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

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in A , Partial corrections

b. 159

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

Rest in AI

No rest in AF (→FE→EE) & GE
..

In this layout, the rest in AI, although formally justified, could suggest the g note to be played by the L.H. Therefore, it seems that it could have been the reason for its removal in AF (→FE→EE). Chopin omitted it also in GE. In analogous b. 167 the rest was crossed out both in AI and AF.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A , Corrections of AI