PERFORMANCE COMMENTARY Notes on the musical text The variants marked as ossia wore given ths label by Chopin or were ‘added in hs hand to pupils’ copies; variants without this designation are the result of discrepancies in the texts of authentic versions or an inabiy to feslablsh an unambiguous reading ofthe text Minor authentic altematves (single notes, omaments, slurs, accents, pedal Indications etc.) that can be regarded as variants are enclosed in’ round brackets (), whist editorial adeitone are writen in square brackes Pianists who are not interested in eitorial questions, and want to base their performance on a single text, unhamperad by variants, ae recommended to Use the music print in the princigal staves, including all the markings in brackets Chopin's orginal fingering is indicated in large. bold-lype numerals, 12°34 5, in contrast to the editors fingering which is writen in smal talc numerals ? 224 5, Wherever authentic fngoring is encosed in paren theses, this means that twas not prasent in the primary sources but added: by Chopin to his pupils copies, The dashed signs indicating the cistrbution of parts between the hands come from the editors. ‘A goneral discussion on the interpretation of Chopin's works is to be con- tained in a separate volume: The Introduction fo the National Edin, in the section enttied Probloms of Performance Abbreviations: RH, — ight hang, LH. —let hand Select Problems Concerning the Performance of Mazurkas ‘The 43 Mazurkas published by Chopin pose a number of specific prob- Jems connected with their performance, The prime reasons include the varie ty of paricular mazurkas a8 well as the fact that Chopin placed them into ‘pus groups and that they were inspired by dance forms of Pash folk music The variety of the mazurkas is enormous. With the exception of two Mazurkas in A minor without opus numbers (Dbop.42A end 428), which share similar size, form, onal relations, and harmonies, its dificult to find two parallel compositions, The scale oftheir vaiely lies on several levels: fem "dance" mazurkas (probably some mazurkas ftom Op. 6 and 7 — see clia- tions About the Mezurkas... preceding the musical text) to expanded dance poems, usually closing opus groups (fom Op. 17 to 59); from an uncon plicated texture of the melody accompanied by simple harmonic functions to Sophisticated cosonoriles and polyphonic fragments, ncuding stict canons. (Mazurka in ©, Op. 8 No. 2 in FF minor, Op. 58 No. 3,n Ct minor, Op. 63 No. 3): rom a musical jest (Mazurka in C, Op. 6 No. § senza fine) to ma- zurkas with highiy draniatc tonsion (closing parts of Mazurkas in CP minor, Op. 41 No. 4 and Op. 50 No. 3). Preparing the mazurkas for print, Chopin grouped them in threes and fours (only Op.6 contains five compositions). The sole exception 's the above-mentioned Mazurka in A minor Dbop. 428, issued separatoly, and Mazurka in A minor Dbop. 428, published in the album La France Musicale The frst opera (6 and 7) and the last opus (63) seem to have been grouped rather haphazardly, but mazurkas ffom Op.17 to Op. $9 indicate certain regularities of arrangement”. One such regularity is the fact thatthe last ma- zurkas in those opera are always in minor keys, are more expanded, and contain greater dramatic force. The second feature consists in the fact that from Op. 24 to Op. §8 the last two compositions always share tonal affinity. In Op. 24, 41 and 50 such affity occurs between all the mazurkas and the tencings of previous compostions make a smooth transition tothe beginnings. of successive mazurkas (the most perfect example being Op. 41). If we add that inthe editorial autograph the orginal soquence ofthe fst two mazurkas ‘rom Op. 56 was changed by Chopin himself, then the thesis about an inten- tionally cyclical arangement from Op. 17 to Op. 59 appears to be justified The task of the performers of tie mazurkas within the framework of opus cycles (e. g. obligatory al recent Chopin Compelions) wil be to retain the indvieual character of each mazurka separately, wih a simultaneous merging ofthe compositions into superior entes. 2 Another problem associated withthe performance of mazurkas isthe re- creation of certain elements originating trom Poksh folk dances. itis known that ‘models for Chopin's mazurkas inclided three trile-ime dances fram Central Poland, performed by couples: the ively, sprightly, rhythmically iferentiated, ane variously accented (usually on the second and third beat) mazur, the Aulek, merry, round, and regularly accented oberek, and the vanqul, mel ancholy kulawiak, often maintained in minor keys and with soft emphases rather than accents, Determinants of those madels inte texts of the mazurkas. include the definition of the tempo (metronomic and verbal). the designation of the character ofthe composition or Its fragments, a well as ohrasing and ac- centing. Chopin provided metronomic tempi only forthe frst mazurka opera, Lup to Op. 24 inclusively, while for Mazurkas jn F# minor and C# minor, Op. 6 No.1 and 2 and nF minor, Op. 7 No. the metranomic tempi are the only de scriptions of the tempo-charactr. Quicker temp incicat the mazur or oberek, and slower ones — the kujawiak. Simlary, a gven danco is associated with Certain verbal markings such as Vivo, Vivace, Allegro, and Animato in the ase of the mazur or oberek, and Lento, Allegretto, Andantino, Moderato, ‘Mesto, Maestoso as well as dolce and cspressivo —~in the case of the Kuja- \wiak. Nonetheless, an overly unambiguous classification, conducted in ac- cordance with those ctria, should not be appied to mazutkas. Fist, only few mmazurkas retain the character of a single dance from beginning to end; they include, e. 9. Mazurkas in Bb, Op. 7, no t and Op. 17 No. , with features of a rmazur, or C minor, Op. 30 No.1, with tras of a kujawak. As a rule, mazur- kas contain elements of two dances, and some — even of three, such a8 Ma _zurkas in D, Op. 33 No. 3, nC, Op. 56 No.2, and in F# minor, Op. 69 No. 3 ‘The second reason les inthe fact that the Chopin mazurkas comprise afar feaching eyization or even an idealization of the dances, within ther jin, borderland areas, Consequently, subte emphasis on certain elements enables ‘the performer to decide independently about the character ofall the composi- tions of particuar fragments ofthe mazurkas. reference toa definte type of dance is meaningtul only in those Instances when the pianist passestes a viv- ic image of is choreography (Irom operas or performances of folk dance en- sembies) and is capable of transposing dance motions tothe performed music. ‘The above comments can be supplemented by Chopin's views about Ma- _zurkas, preceding the musical text, reports by isteners of his performances, fang reminiscences of his pupis, although ther contrbuton to the question of execution remains sight. Invaluable fragments ofthe Chopin correspondence concer his creative process rater than performance. Reports by listeners Confirm information about Chopin's playing known from otter sources (86 the alvays diferent interpretation of a repeated composition). The recollec- tions of pupils say more about the atmosphere prevailing at lessons given by Chopin, and a tendency to illustrate music By means of ierary conceptions, typical for Romanticism, than about his requirements as regards interpreta: tion, The tavern-salon” contrast in Mazurka in D, Op. 33 No. 3, mentioned by IM. Czartoryska, could be interesting wore it not so dificult to situate this effect, in elation to the notation, which inthis respects quite clear. Finally, the os- sentialy concurrent descriptons of rythmic fexlity in Chopin's performance {a tendency to come cose tothe 4/4 rhythm), noted by his two pupils, W. von Lenz and C. Hallé, contain vague detals. At any rat, It would be rather m= possible to re-create this peculiar feature of Chopin's own performance. The above outlined elements can be only of auxiliary signifcance for the execution of mazurkas. We must keep in mind the fact that tis form, most rnumerously represented in Chopin's couvre, possosses its own superior, por- sonal creative cause, extremly dificult to re-create by the artist performer. “The prime reason for wring mazurkas was the emotional ard musical bond betwoon the composer and his homeland, and the painfuly experiences permanent exile. During the last years of his life Chapin wrote to a tiene: "Where have | wasted my heart? | barely recall how they sing at home". The ‘most apt interpretation ofthe role played by mazurkas inthe works of Chopin Is probably the one presented by his of-cted non-Polish pupil, W. von Lenz: “Chopin's mazurkas are a diary of his sprtual journey in the potica-socia domains ofthe Sarmatian word of dreams, This was tne realm of his unique art of performance, here Chopin-the pianist felt at home. Inthe Parisian saion [u] he represented Poland, the land of his dreams, and [in music) he1-13, Mazurkas Op. 6, 7, and 17 Slight dtferences in performance indications in analogous places (shring, markings of artcuation, pedaling et al), which occur rather frequent in those Mazurkas, could be an expression of the intentions of Chopin rimnsol or te complete partial outcome ofa careless preparation of the first a tion. The absence of aulographe ofthe utimate versions of Mazurkas makes: it impossible to soWve such doubts. The decision whether, and which of tho @ (no of the threo aboverpresontod realizations can bo appli also in bar 117 Bars 39 and 55 RLM. The stat ofthe rill witha grace-note: GaSe oF" together with an appropriate base note. Bars 46-48 On modem pianos, in order to avoid three-bar long vibra- tions ofthe notes cst-, the pedal can be changed on the second beat in bar 46 and lightly released more or less inthe middle of bar 48. The retention of clean and full harmony is possible with tho employment of ‘tho folowing technique in bar 46: ‘ P87 ars 62.64 Here, itis possible to apply similar variants of pedaling as in bars 46-48 (see above for commentary to those bars).Performance Commentary 23. Mazurka in C major, Op. 33 No. 2 °72 pars 1, 2, 3 and analog, Accents can be interpreted as relerting to whole chord (n both hanes) or oly o minis in he LH. Bars 12 and 14 RLH, Double grace-notes shouldbe started simultane ‘ously with appropriate rotes Inthe LH. and in remaining RLH, voices. Bar 83 LH. The fst grace-note, b, should be sounded together with Gin the bass, 24. Mazurka in D major, Op. 33 No. 3 ‘The dynamics and character ofthe Mazurka ‘The Chopin tradition contains an interpretation ofthis Mazurka — see cia lions About the Mazurkas.. preceding the musical text. We could suspect, however, that we are dealing with a misunderstanding as regards the local: ization of tha “avern-saln” afoct. I saems much more probable that it dows not rofer to the beginning and ending of tho Mazurka but 1 dynamicaly con trasted eight-bar sections othe main theme. This hypathasis is confirmed by the fact that Chopin placed characteristic acconts on the third beat in pars withthe JF oF J eynamics and didnot place them in BP parts. 73 pars 1.8, 17-24 and analog. FLH. The main text contains fingering hich follows naturally from the Chopin notation. The fingering pre- sented below makes wider use of the stronger fingers ? and 3 bast4 tase bars 17.20 bars 21-24 as bars 6-8, Ite algo possibie to use combinations ofthe above fingering withthe fingering given in the main tex ar 2 and analog. The first grace-note should be struck withthe bass rote, 25. Mazurka in B minor, Op. 33 No. 4 °.7® Bar 1 The absence of the tempo-character marking of unquestioned authenticity at the beginning of this composition (see Source Com: ‘mentary and the lack of any sor of pertinent directives in the further course of the work impose reflections on the proper tempo of the whole Mazurka In view of the undoubtedly ively and mazut-lke na> {ure of the section in 8} major (from bars 49 and 89) and in B major (from bar 137) it seems that an excassivaly siow tempo must be ‘avoided also in the remaining, iycal sections. Bars 2,4 and analog. RLM. Grace-notes should be stuck together wih Bin the LH. The uncrossed grace-notes in bars 4, 28, 68 and 172 should last slighty longer than those crossed in bar 2 and analog, though shorter than quavers in bar 6 and analog. 26. Mazurka in E minor, Op. 41 No. 1 P85 Bars 34 and 38 RH, Regardless of the manner of notation, mordents should be started together with appropriate notes in the remaining 27. Mazurka in B major, Op. 41 No. 2 For authentic material pertaining o the charactor ofthe introduction and the whole Mazurka — see cations About the Mazurkas... before the musical tex. P87 Bars 41-42 Different fingering: 28. Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 41 No. 3 P89 Bars 1-8 and analog. R.H. Attention must be drawn to differences in pasing n bare 1-4 and 58. An essential featur of the frst our bars is sof emphasis on the fst notes ofthe bars: a, a, oa The second for bars place emphasis on 9! in bar 5 and gl n bar 7 and vide mot ty raising the hand bars 6 and 8. Cite lowing comment. Bars 6, 8 and analog. LH. The characteristic dual form ofthe shyt (399 ana F¥9} appoars upon numerous occasions in difront ‘works by Chopin. Presumabiy, the composer wavered between those extreme realizations, and had in mind a natural, nt very clearly ryth- ried sng of the hae, approximately, 7d °° 9 Bars 48:50 The absence of an authentic sign for releasing the pedal probably means its longer retention, for example, for the duration of thvee bare. At any rate, the best effect is obtained by a gradual, slow release of the pedal. In order to avoid a dissonant vibration of the seconds bo! and be", one can also apply the “harmonic logato" {fingers hold down harmonic notes} sony bemem en & par nding In the main version, this Mazurka ends in bar 6 of the antici pated eight-bar section, which requires a particulary subtie slowing down (unmarked in tho tox). The effect of suspending the phrase ‘employed by Chopin rendors the link with Mazurka in Ct miner, tho next the cycle, extremely smooth. For these reasons, the editors permit the variant only # the Mazurka is performed separately (and not as par af the cycle)29. Mazurka in C sharp minor, Op. 41 No. 4 °-%9 Bars 28 and 92 FL. The first grace-nate should be sounded together withthe LH °° Bar 71 LH, The fact thal the chord grace-note was written as a crot cnet was probably supposed to suggests calm execution It should bo, theretore, stuck togeter wih the bass A and, due o clash wth the LH. given a value sighty shorer than the quae 30. Mazurka in A minor Dbop. 42A (Gaillard) Phasing, In view of the imprecise slurring (see Source Commentary) in bars 8-5 and analog. we suggest the felowing phrasing which could resut from overlapping slurs from various analogous places: bars 3-5, 19-21 and analog, —— bars 7-9, 2-25 and anal. ‘The acceptance of those or other proposals stemming from the text is left to the dscretion ofthe performer, One can accept a single version of phrasing or ciffeentiate paricuar passages, °-%. Bars 69, 74 and 72 RLM, Grace-rotes should be exocuted in an ant cipatory manner. °-*°" Bar 125 1 On modem pianos, sustaining the pedal othe end ofthe Composition produces an excessive minging of sounds in the LH. sits, In order to sustain the base A, it ie recommended to use the thir (sostenuto) peda 31. Mazurka in A minor Dbop. 42B ("La France Musicale") Bar 3 and analog. RH, Exec tion ofthe chord with grace-notes: Bar 50 LH. Execution of grace-note: 102 108, 32. Mazurka in G major, Op. 50 No. 1 °-195 par 12 and analog, ALM, Striking the grace-note simultaneously with ‘bin te LH. is moro in keoping with Chopin's sly. Bars 17-24 The entra eightbar section can be also conveniently uted by sustaining e'rom the begining in the FH. Portormance Commentary Bar 20 RH. It's better to strke the frst grace-note together with gin the LH 1 owsr en PE oP °° 128 Bar 20 RAH. Tho grace-note should be sounded simultaneously with g' inthe LH carro an PE = LET 33, Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 50 No. 2 P-10° ar 36 LH. The fst grace-note should be struck together with in the LH P17 ars 61-81 The slur next to the grace-note can be understood as a conventional sign er, more probably, as an arpaggio: PT =F inva AT PT In both cases, owing to the characteristic rhythm and articulation of this eection, i le Beller fo execute the omaments in an anticipatory ‘manner (prior tothe LH) 34, Mazurka in C sharp minor, Op. 50 No. 3 P-18 Bar 41 RH. The grace-note bt" should be sounded simukaneously With te fit inthe LH. P77 ars 173-176 In order to enhance the melody It is possible to apply ‘he folowing cvision between the hands: a i 35. Mazurka in B major, Op. 56 No. 1 °- "8 Bars 1-5, 7, 9, 11 and analog. RH. Sources do not make clear in which bars Chopin wished the theds to be arpeggiated (eee Source Commentary), Apart fom the version contained inthe tex, one can ‘apply additional arpeggios in bars 7, 11 and analog. itis also possible to omit some of the printed arpeggios (especialy in further repetitions of this movement) The ower note of each arpeggio should be sounded together withthe fist note inthe LH, Rhythmic realization in bars 2, 4 and analog, °° Bars 36 and 155 R.H. In these bars the variants are independent, e. the dotted rhythm can be played in both places, in ene only, or nat executed a allPerformance Commentary °-"20 pars 7-80 and 195-142 RLM. The sempre legato marking writen slighty belore those groups should be understoad as “harmonic lea to* (fingers hold down harmonic notes}: bars 7-80 ‘Analogously in bar 135 and folowing ones. °-"2 ar 184 The pedaling should be understood as follows: the pedal retained to the third crotchet of the bar can be depressed at the begin ring ofthe bar or on the semi-quaver;itcan be depressed also at the boginning of the bar and changed on the semi-quaver. 36. Mazurka in C major, Op. 56 No. 2 °- "5 Bars 7 and 11 RLH. Different fingering for fcitatng the morden Bars 16-17 and analog. RLH. It does not follow clearly fom the Cho pin rotation whether the nota gf, witten as a dotted minim, is to be ‘sustained simiarty tothe eame melodic note. From the formal pont of view, it should be repested as a component of another voice, The ‘majority of arguments, however, speaks in favour of sustaining it the lower Voice is ofa dlstinct accompanying nature 4g’, accented and sustained avery few bars, creates an indapen- dont plan, which is an instrumental effect applied wilingly By Chopin Utimately, the editors recommend: not to repeat the note gin any of those places while selecting the main text, to repeat the note gin bars 21, 73 and 81 wile choosing the var lant version Iti also permitted to repeat the note ginal the discussed passages. Bar 18 and analog. Tho chord C-G-ein bars 16, 18 and analog is as cribed by Chopin to the LH. wih an arpeggi, or, whenever possibe, {Is divided into two hands without the arpeggio. Upon this basis one can assume thatthe arpeggios are technical and not expressive. Tris the reason why a simultaneous execution of chords in the LH. is permited as long asthe hand span allows it obviously, this does not pertain to arpeggtated chords in both hangs in bars 16 and analog), P72 par 64 FL. Ite beer to execute the grace-note in an anticipatory In the edtors opinion, the octave in the LH. sounds better on modern pianos without the arpeggio (which, anyhow, is found only in some sources 37. Mazurka in C minor, Op. 56 No. 3 "29 ar 64 RLM, In order to avoid deforming the rhythm of the tpt itis botter to execute the grace-note in an anticipatory manner (before dot" in the LH). Bars 72-74 The editors permit both sustaining the notes fin the main version and repeating thom inthe varant version. C. Source Com. Bars 89-104 LH. In this section arpeggios appear only in wider post tions, which could denote that they are technical and net expressive. Taking nto consideration Chopin's not always careful notation of the arpeggios the xitors permit three possible realizations: — the arpeggios played only in those places where they are writen (ars 91-92 wih or without arpeggios) — all chords without arpeggios (as long as the hand span allows it some ofthe upper notes can be taken into the LH.) all chords with arpeggios. ‘The choice of one of the possibilies is let to the discretion of the performer. 38. Mazurka in A minor, Op. 59 No. 1 P-795 ar@ and analog. LH. The start ofthe till wth grace-notes: dott together with chord in the LH. Bar 25 RH, The braces placed below the fingering denote the @x- chango of fingers ortho striking of g’ and f' with two fingors simulta neously. The latter seems moro likly since a similar brace has al- ready baen used by Chopin for denoting a simultaneous striking of {wo notes with one finger {in the Prelude A, Op. 28 No, 7, bar 12). ‘The siking of one Key with two fingers would be the only example of such an “expressive fingering" in Chopin's work (ot, Performance Commentary to the volume of Studies. Bars 25 and 103 LH. The grace-noto should bo oxocuted in an anticipatory manner. °°" Bars 67, 61, 65 and 69 PLM. Ator the preceding figuation i's easier to execute the chord atthe beginning of these bars so that its lower note is struck only in the LH. Bars 59, 63 and 67 LH. Its better to execute grace-notes in an ant- ‘lpatory manner (prior othe chord in the LH) °-18 Bar 86 RLH, The grace-note denotes the stat ofthe tril om the main nate without its repettion petites et” together withthe LH. chord Bars 90 and 114 PLH, The fist grace-note should be sounded togeth- er with the base note. 39, Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 59 No. 2 P-'¥ Bar 30 The FLM. part can be facilitated by playing "inthe LH, Bars 45, 49 and analog. R.H. The grace-note shouldbe struck simul- taneously withthe Li. P12 ars 70, 72 and 74 LLM, Te tstgrace-note should be sounded simul taneously withthe F.H, (in bar 72 also with the minim ab in the LH),aarso nn. afte = abpp Bar 101 L1H. Tho intention of Chopin's script was to rtain tho sonor- ty of note AS fo the end of bar 102 (fist with the fith finger of the LM land subsequently wth the pedal). I the hand span makes i impos: sible to execute tho chord while retaining the fundamental bass note, ¢' can be executed in the RH, Bars 108-109 Ditlerent fingering Bars 108-111 Hore, sources difer as regards placing the sign of pedal release. In pracice, this denotes a choice of one of the three following possibites: ‘bars 108-709 with the pedal, ars 110-111 without the pedal —the whole ending (oars 108-111) wih one pedal — pedal depressed in bars 108 and 110, and released in bars 109 and 111 40. Mazurka in F sharp minor, Op. 59 No. 3 pss Bar 8 RAH. The graco-note gt" should be struck simultancously with Chin the bass. Bars 43-44 The moaning of slurs in the lower stave isnot auto clear (cf. Mazurka in A minor, Op-58 No. 1, bar 42, and in Ab, Op. 59 No. 2, bar 88), The editors regard the folowing realizations as possible: toy fe ey a 8 > > > Bar 103 The sign of depressing the pedal is not precisely located in tho sources. The podal may be deprossod also on tho second beat, Giving fuller harmony at the price of ringing semitones in the FLH., for onthe fourth quaver, which, with precise execution, makss it possi- ble to retain the base without such mingling, Performance Commentary Bar 119 RL. It is possible to facitate the leap to the chord on the second beat by playing ain the semi-quaver chord with the L.H, P-'8 ars 190-199 The choice of one of the versions (se@ Source Com: ‘mentary) should resuit from diferont possibities of shaping tho cot ‘ur and weight of chords in these harmonicaly rch four bars 41. Mazurka in B major, Op. 63 No. 1 P49 Bars 3, 11 and analog. P.M. The frst note gf of the arpeggio in bar 3 and analog, and the grace-note gin bar 11 an analog, should be Sounded together wih he LH 42, Mazurka in F minor, Op. 63 No. 2 P18? Bars 9, 41 and 49 LH. The grace-note should be struck simuitane- cusy wih the fat note inthe LH. While selecting the main etn bar 49 one should lake over the sustained c' bythe pedal a the begin- fing ofthe bar, and strike afer the bass noe, 43. Mazurka in C sharp minor, Op. 63 No. 3 °-185 Bars 66-71 R.H. A distinct, as much as possible legato rendition of both voices ofthe canon and te retention of the sonoity of bass notes wou an excessive minging of molode semitones can be biaine in the folowing way (nets of he canon are emphasize by the bold-ype af the notes): mom's ae Jan Ekier Pawel KamisskiSOURCE COMMENTARY /asriocen/ Introductory remarks Tho following commentary sols out in an abridged form the principles of odt- ing the musica txt of particular works and discusses the most important ais repancies betwoon the authontic sources; urthermoro It draws attomon to Uunauthentic versions which are most frequently encountered inthe collected editions of Chopin's music compiled after his death. A separately published ‘Source Commentary contains a detailed description ofthe sources, thir ia tion, justiication of the choice of primary sources, a thorough presentation of the diferances between them and a reproduction of characteristic fragments. Abbreviations: RM. — eght hand, LH. — ethan tween sures shouldbe readand bases on sign symbotzes a conection The order of Mazurkas ‘The purpose of the National Eatin isto prasent works by Chopin in an au thantc form, which inthis volume of Mazurkas alsa entalis ther order. The order of mazurkas in Op. 6, 7, 3, and 1 is retained in accordance with Cho- pin’ intention, and two Mazurkas in A minor (Dbop. 428, dedicated to Emil Gaillard and Dbop. 428, from the album La France Musicale) are situated according tothe principle of chronology. The general order of the mazurkas is, nertore, at variance with heretofore collected ecions (which in this res pect also iter among each other 1-9. Mazurkas, Op. 6 and 7 Location of Mazurka in C CGriginally, botn opera wore to contain four Mazurkas each, as tested by the ‘arlest impressions of the frst edtions. The Mazurka in C, subsequent ‘added by Chopin, appeared in the successive impression of the frst French fediton as fith in Op. 6, and in the following impression of the fst German edition as tt in Op. 7. Since Chopin remained in direct contact with his French pubilsher, we regard the order ofthe fist French edition as the one which most probably coesponds to his intention. Editorial Principles \We accept as our foundation the fst French edition which was based directly fon autographs (ost) containing the ulimate, most mature form of he Mazur- ss. Earlier versions, found in extant autographs, are imporant only in those ceases whan the basic source is suspocted of inciuding erors. Wo tako into consideration Chopin's annotations in pupils copies which occur in certain mazurkas, Order is introduced into inconsistent suring an other atculation markings (soe description of FET below). We keep in mind obvious analogies and the knowledge, obtained while working on other compositions, of Chopin's habits and the typical alterations in criginal editions. Owing to the number of such problams, in obvious situations we de not apply brackets so as to avoid ovar burdening he text. Wheraverdiferencee could correspond fo Chopin's inten tions we leave the source version 1. Mazurka in F sharp minor, Op. 6 No. 1 Sources [A] Thoroisno extant autograph basis for the frst editions [Al Autograph inscribed in the F. Hiller album, wit the aate "Paris 1882" (Archiv der Stact, Koln). The form of the presented Mazurka ctfors ‘rom the ultimate version in numerous details, Characteristic features include certain harmonic sequences, simplified and polished in the version prepared for print, 10 FE1 Fist French edition, M. Schlesinger (M.S. 1841), Paris June 1833, comprises only four mazutkas. FET is based on [A] but contains nu= ‘merous ertors, oversights and inconsistencies. Presumably they are the outcome of Chopin's huried wring of [Aland correction of FE FE2 Second impression of FE1, fering trom the fist only by the addtion cof te ith Mazurka in C. FE =FEt ano FEZ. FED, FES, FEJ —collactons of pupils! FE copies with annotations by Cho- pin, containing fingering, performance directives, varants and correc- tions of printing errors: FED — collection belonging to Chopin's pupil Camile Dubois (Bibio- theque Nationale, Paris) FES — collection belonging to Chopin's pupll Jane Sting (Biblio théque Nationale, Paris) FE, — collection belonging to Chopin’ sstor Lucwika Jpdzejewiezo— wa (Chopin Society, Warsaw). GE1_ First Gorman ealton, F. Kistner (996), Leipzig Docember 1832. GE1 's based on tho proots of FEt; cortaln orors of the basis wore cor rected and changes and supplements were introduced. There are no proservad traces of Chopin's paricipation ints production (GE2, GE3 — second and third German edtion (same publisher and number), ‘after 1840, containing re-created versions of previous editions with ‘ight changes (and errors). GE4 Fourh German eaition (same publisher and number), wih a number of essential arbitrary changes. We cite GES only in those cases when \inluenced later collected edtons GE = GE1, GE? and GES. EE First English edtion, Wessel & C° (W & C* 958), London August 1833. EE, based probably on FET, corrected some af its errors and intr duced numerous unauthentic addtions and ateations, Editorial Principles —see Mazurkas, Op. 6 and 7. P18 Bars 2-11 and analog. RH. A complex problem of ties sustaining notes across bar-ines arises here, The maln text re-croates the FE version, supplamentad only by two tes in bars 80-2 (seo comment- ary to those bars). Nonetheless, in view of numerous erors and impro- ‘sion inthe first edtions,dtferences between successive appearances of this Section can be regarded as accidental. This is the reason why in bars 28-29, 6164 and 66-67 we give as varants versions contained previously in analogous bars, GE4 and the majority of the later collect- fed editions supplement tes even in those places where they appear in the sources only once (ain bars 2-3 and analog. and cf” in bars 4-5 land analog.) or where they are absent ("in bars 8-9 and analog.) Bar 5 and analog. LH. Some of the lator collected eaitions arbitrarily change ct” to on the third beat. Ar lst tothe fact that "was intended to be here from the begining. A aversificaton of sequence bby means of small ferences was very characteristic of Chopin, Bars 11-12 ALM, Some of the later collected editions arbitrarily change ‘equal quavers to dood rhythm on the last boat of bar 11. Some also alter the beginning of bar 12 to resemble bar 4. The source version of bars 11-12 cerainly comprises a rhythmic-execution variant intended ‘by Chopin. Chopin used a similar measure of expression upon several feccasions in Mazurkas from this period: in CF minor, Op. 6 No. 2, bars 28:20 and 6566 in comparison with bars 18-14 and 87-58, in BB, ‘Op. 7 No. 1, bars 28-31 in comparison with bars 25-27, in F minor (Op. 7 No. 3, bars 97-98 in comparison with bars 93-94, Bars 16-40 In FE (-sEE) bar 40 contains a repeat sign which has no ‘counterpart in bar 16. Al fand GE) contains both necessary signs Bars 30-32 ALM, In FE notes ain bars 20-31 are not ted, andthe frst triplet in bar 32 sounds a-ha’, Al and a comparison with bars 6-8 tesity to errors in FE (corected already in GE and EE),Bar 35 F.H. The main text (dotted ehythm) i the source version. Equal {quavers (as in corresponding bar 11 — see commentary) harmonize Dotter with the quavers at the beginning of bar 36, and thus, assuming the possibilty ofan erorin FE, we add this version as a variant. Bar 40 Sources contain f here, It is quite possible, however, that Chopin had in mind J, a8 in the next bars. Upon several occasions, ‘other works published at this time in FE omit" inf. Cf. Perform: ‘ance Commentary. Bar 46 RLH. FE (»GE.EE) has no grace-note a before the octave cfc, This is certainly a mistake ofthe engraver since the analogous bar 5¢ in FE contains a grace-note, and AI includes itin both bars. Bar 56 LH. In FED Chopin added § ralsing toot” n the chord, He ‘overlaoked fin such a harmonic context upon several ther occa sions (e.g. in Mazurka in C¥ minor, Op. 6 No. 2, bat 13 and analog forin Mazurka in A minor, Op. 7 No.2, bar 7) Bars 69 and 71 FE (-»GE.EE) contains ritenuto in bar 68, In FED ‘Chopin crossed i out and wrote itin bar 71. 2. Mazurka in C sharp minor, Op. 6 No. 2 Sources ‘As Sketch ofthe whole Mazurka (Polish Library, Pai) ‘Al Autograph (Stitelsen Muskkuiturens Framjande, Stockholm), difering from the ulimate version in numerous, specially rhythmic, detal, Remaining sources as in Mazurka in F min, Op. 6 No. 1. Editorial Principles —see Mezurkas, Op. 6 and 7. P19 Bar 1 In FE (-sGE, EE) the marking of the metronomic tempo mistak- ‘nly contains J instoad of 4. Such a slow tompo would be ireconci- bie with the marking Tempo giustoin Al entited Mazur. CF. commen- tary to bart in Mazurka in E, Op. 6 No, 2, Bars 2 and 50 PLM. FE (-%GE,EE) contains no crotchet gt” at the be- dinning ofthe bar. This printing error is testified by gf" in AS and AL Bar 19 and analog. LH. FE (-»GE,EE) contains no 4 ralsing ato at in the chords. In FED the overlooked sign was added by Chopin in bar 69; iis also included in A. In bar 29 all sources have at ars 19, 20 and 23 LLM. Accents in brackets come fom Al Bar 28 LH. GES arbitraiy adds the note ot on the second crotchet. ‘The application of the sixth gi-o! alone is justified by the sifferent ‘accompaniment arrangement in the folowing bar. Bar 58 LH, FE (->GE.EE) overlooks ct” in the chords. In AS and AI bars 57-64 are a repetion of bars 9-16; nothing indicates that Chopin Wished to aiferentiate them in the utimate version, ar 71 RH. The second note in FE (-»GE.EE) is the somiquaver a ‘This error was corrected by Chopin in FED; a correct version (is, contained alsa in As and Al 3, Mazurka in E major, Op. 6 No. 3 Sources |AL_ Autograph ofan eater version, entitled Mazur (photocopy inthe Cho: pin Society, Warsaw). Chopin improved numerous deta inthe later Printed version. Remaining sources asin Mazurka in Ft minor, Op. 6No. 1. Editorial Principles —see Mazurkas, Op. 6 and 7. Source Commentary pai Bar 1 The metronemic tempo in GE is J 60 and in EE J=160. This proves that orginally FE gave the value J, later corrected by Chopin tod Bars 11, 19 and analog. RH. FE (-»GE) lacks ¥ lowering otto 6 in ‘the penutimate third. Chopin often overlooked a sign in a similar con- text Al (and EE) contains naturals here, P22 ar 34 LH. The main text comes from FE (9GE1,GE2.EE). Since ‘we cannot possibly exclude a mistake of the engraver, we give the Al version as a variant. pes Bar 82 LH. FE (-»GE,EE) has tho tth e-h as the thd crochet, This is probably the original version, uncorrected owing to carelessness; consequertiy, we accept the chord appearing in analogous bars. Al contains a fournote chord here Bar 69 LLM, FE contains a-ct' asthe third erotehet, an ertor corected alwady in GE and EE, 4. Mazurka in E flat minor, Op. 6 No. 4 Sources [As Sketch of the entire Mazurka (Publichnaya Bibiotoka, St, Petersburg). Remaining sources as in Mazurka in Ft minor, Op. 6 No. 1 wth the excep: ion of the nonexistent A). Editorial Principles — see Mazurkas, Op. 6and 7. P24 Bars 2.3 and 18-19 LH. The majority ofthe later collected editions arbivally tod the notes 68" btwoen those bars. 5. Mazurka in C major, Op. 6 No. 5 Sources [A], FE2, FED, FES, FEJ— as in Mazurka in F¥ minor, Op. 6 No. 1 GE2, GES, GE4, GES, GEG — asin Mazurka in Bs, Op. 7 No. 1 For the question of adding this Mazurka to Op. 6 or Op. 7 and editorial principles —see Mazurkas, Op. 6 and 7. 6. Mazurka in B flat major, Op. 7 No. 1 Sources [A] There is no extant autograph basis forthe first editions ‘A Autograph of an eater version, entitled Mazur (photocopy inthe Cho- pin Society, Warsaw). FE! Fist French edition, M. Schlesinger (M.S. 1842), Pars June 1898. FEt is based on [A] but contains numerous errors, oversights. and inconsistencies. This is presumably the result of Chopin's huried \weing ef [A] and correction of FE FE2 Second Fronch edition, Brandus et C* (B et C* 1342), Pars, prior to October 1847. FEZ re-creates tho text of FET with slight changes. Chopin didnot take part in its production, FE = FEY and FE2 FED, FES, FEJ —as in Mazurka in F8 minor, Op. 6 No.1 GE1 First German edition, F. Kiser (997) Lelpzig December 1832. GE! is based on the proofs of FE1; catain arrors of tho basis wore corrected land changes and supplements introduced. There are no preserved traces of Chopin's participation in ts production {GE2 Second impression of GET, difering rom the fist only by the addition of the ith Mazurka in C. (GES, GE4— second and third German eation (same publisher and number), ‘ater 1840, containing recreated versions of previous editions with slight changes (and errs) "Source Commentary GES. Fourh German edition (same publisher and numer), introducing ‘a number of essential arbivary changes, GES _Fith German eaition (same publisher and number), with slight changes in relation to GES. GE =GE!, GE2, GES, GE4 ana GES. EE Fist English edition, Wossel & C” (W & 958), London August 1833. EE, basod probably on FEI, corrected some of ils errors and into ‘duced numerous unaianentic actions and alterations, Editorial Principles —see Mezurkas, Op. 6 and 7, °-25 par 8 and analog. ALM. FE (GE, EE) has no wedge over o. We ‘supplement this presumable oversight according to Al °-27 Bar 36 FH. In FE (EE) the grace-note is g” This eror was set right ‘by Chopin in FES and FEJ; a correct version (F) i also found in GE. Bar 40 PLA. GES arbitrary removed the grace-note Bar 43 LH. FE has ~y ovor ob instead of over o# This eror was set right by Chopin in FED: GE and EE also contain a correct version. Bars 56-58 LH, In FES Chopin added ossia variants, bars 63-64 FLH. Its probable that Chopin intended to apply a dotted ‘tthe onthe tied beatin bar 63 only during the last repetition of this section, He added the ening of the Mazurka (bar 6, 2. volta) wile preparing the compostion for print (Al does not contain t) and, cor Centraing his attention an the last bar, could have neglected to notice that the two vollas didnot nclude an ending of bar 63 similar o that in bars 11, 23 and 43 7. Mazurka in A minor, Op. 7 No. 2 Sources [Al] Lost autograph ofthe orginal version of the Mazurka, published in a supplement to the collected edton of Chopin's works, Bretkopf & Har tel, Leipzig 1902. This version contains a noteworthy eigh-bar intro duction in, entited Duda (Pipes), which Chopin later abandoned. Remaining sources as in Mazurka in Bb, Op. 7 No. 1 Editorial Principles —see Mazurkas, Op. 6 and 7. °-?8 Bar 7 LH. In tho last chord FEI has no ¢ raising fo ft. This orror was corrected in GE, EE and FE2. The sharp was situated also prob: ably in [All Chopin overlooked f in such contexts upon several occa sions (€. 9. in Mazurka in Fr minor, Op. 6 No.1, bar 56, and Mazurka int minor, Op. 6 No.2, bar 13 and analog). Bar 8 LH. GE erroneously omited 4 before gt inthe chord Bars 16 and 82 FE (1GE,EE) has Fine in bar 16. Chopin deleted it in FED and added tin bat 32 ar 27 RH. It's almost impossible to decipher precsaly the variants in FED and FES upon the basis of photocopies avaliable for the ed tors of the National Eton, Notes ofthe variants are densely (and in FED also incistinety) placed between the printed notes; itis also unclear whether the later constitute part of the variant or are sup posed to be replaced by added ones. The musical text gives the most probable realizations as ossia; athar readings are presanted below: 12 In his edition of Mazurkas (Gebethner & Wolf, Warsaw 1882) J. Kle— czyfski presented yat another version, suggested by Chopin's pupil Marcelina Czartoryska (the rigid thythmic division could have been added by Kleczyhis Bar 48 F.H. Tho grave-note Is glen In the form which it has in FEA. Chopin could have intended the grace-note J, deformed due to an terror commited by the engraver. A grace-note inthe latter form i contained in GE and FE2, Bar 56 (2. volta) LH. On the second beat GES-GES have the octave ‘AWA. This isthe result of a mistaken reading ofa plate defect in GE2 a3 the note A 8. Mazurka in F minor, Op. 7 No. 3 Sources [AI Autograph fair copy of the earls version, withthe date "Vienna 20/6 1831" (phatocopy in the Chopin Society in Warsaw) |All Autograph fair copy of the early version, wih the date "Vienna 20/7 1831" (photocopy in the Chopin Society in Warsaw), containing ‘a number of small changes and improvements in relation to Al |All The last, undated autograph fair copy (Stitelsen Musikkutturens Frammjande, Stockholm), containing the Mazurka ina form only sighty deren rom the utimate one, Remaining sources asin Mazurka in Bt, Op. 7 No. 1. Editorial Principles — see Mazurkas, Op. 6 and 7 PS) ar 45 RLM, Alter the frst chord FES has an additional semiquaver rot This mistaken rythm is reduced in GE tothe form ot J) sar 69 UH Te Fe rp: BEERS wens 0 result of the correction of the version contained in bars 48 and 49. ‘The purpose of tne change could have besn to avoid an excess of arpeggios prior tothe expanded arpeggio in bar 54 Bar 54 FE (-»GE.EE) contains separate arpeggio wavy lines for each hand, In FED Chopin added a continuous arpeggi. P82 pars 02.83 FE (-2GE.EE) has no ties sustaining notes ¢, 9c’ ‘A comparson with earier versions of bars 81-83 in Al and All ton A: Pore Orr Pore Orr sound bar 6, wha smutaneous tendency a prolong te sano fity ofthe fourth g-c" nthe LH, indicates the possibly that these ties were overlooked in FE, in which only the bass F isBars 85-105 LLH. The only arpegio sign inthis whole section is stu ated in FE prior othe first chord in bar 89. It was probably mistakenly ‘writen instead of the arpeggio in bar 85 — an arpeggio only in bar 89 ‘or beginning with this bar would be senseless. All contains an arpeg- io in bar 85 as wall as two arpaggos in each of the folowing bars: 986, 87 and 99 (ef. Performance Commentary, 9, Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 7 No. 4 Sources [AI Autograph of the orginal version, dated by Kolberg as 1824 (Warsaw Music Socety) [As Sketch of a version close to the ulimate one (Jagiellonian Library, Krakow), Remaining sources asin Mazurka in Bb, Op. 7 No. 1. Editorial Principles —see Mezurkas, Op. 6 and 7. Bars 6:7 RLH. Chopin's fingering i rom As, °° Bar 24 LH, Some of the later collected edtions present this bar in ‘wo versions (1. and 2, volta), the frst time giving it the form of bar 8 (withthe semiquaver bat the end). We leave the source version as the only one, since the joining of bars 24 and 9 Is que smooth. It is ‘even possibie that Chopin intentionally diferentiated both entries to bars. 10. Mazurka in B flat major, Op. 17 No. 1 Sources [A] Thor is no extant autograph. FE1 First French edton, |. Pleyel (|. P. 2912), Pars, beginning of 1834. FE% is based on (A FE2 Second impression of FE, made soon after tne frst, M. Schlesinger (M.S. 1704), Paris. Musical text in FE1 and FE2 is identical FE =FEI and FEZ. FED, FES, FEJ — as in Mazurka in Ft minor, Op. 6 No.1 GE1 First Gorman edtion, Breikopf & Hare! (5527), Leipzig March 1834, GEt is based on FE, and iniroduces sight changos of is own. Cho- pin's suporcial proofreading cannot be excluded. There are copies ‘of GEt with aitfrent prices an the covers, GE2 Second German ection (same publisher and number), ater 1840, With detailed revisions. Chopin oid not take par in its production. GE3._ Third German edition (same publisher and number), after 1852, with slight changes in relation to GE2 GE = GE!, GE2, and GES. EE Fist Engish edion, Wessel & C* (W & C° 1144), London August 1834, EE is based on FE! and was not corrected by Chopin Editorial Principles Wo base our toxton FE with annotations in FES, P85 Bar 5 RH. On the third beat GE1 has the mistaken ehythm Jd, which in GE2 was changed ito the unauthnte shythen J #2 Bars 9-24 FE (-9GE, EE) did not place these bars between repeat signs but printed them forthe second time; tis denotes an unneces: ‘sary second execution of this eection when its da Capo repetition fakes place. At this time of his life, Chopin always marked repetitions ‘of such ong sections with the ald ofa repeat sign. The fact tat such 2 Sign was contained in [Ais testfied by the musically unjustties double bar ine, ccurring inthe orignal extions prior to bar. Source Commentary P98 are 92.97 and 40-42 ALM, We cortect the incomplete and imprecise FE sluring and transfer the wedge in bar 84 from f" to abn accord ‘ance with Chopin's handwriten directives in FES. Bar 35 P.H. FE (-»GE.EE) has no b over the socond mordent, This sign was added by Chopin in FES. Bar 42 RLH. In FE (-+EE) the 8" sign encompasses only the last Aquaver. In GET it was placed imprecsely so that the majorty of the later collected edtions mistakenly included into it also the grace-note. 11, Mazurka in E minor, Op. 17 No. 2 Sources [AL Autograph, partly sketched, of the nondofinitve version of tho Ma: 2urka (Jagillonian Library, Krak) Remaining sources and editorial principles — as in Mazurka in B, (Op. 17 No.1 (with the exception of FES which does not contain annotations). P87 ar 12 ALM. FE (4EE) overlooks ¢ raising o to dt. GE contains the cotreet version P-88 Bar 56 AH, In FE (-»GE,EE) the grace-note g's ted to a minim. This is probaby the result of a mistaken reading of the arpeggio sign (c. bars 4 and 16) asa te, so we present this version only as a vatant Bar 66 F.H. GES arbliarly changed the secona grace-note to a 12, Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 17 No. 3 Sources and editorial principles — as in Mazurka in Bs, (Op. 17 No.1 (withthe exception of FES which does not contain annotations). We introduce slight retouches of the slurring due to the absence of an autograph (probably not overly metculous inthis respect) and a considerable probability tha the slurs were imprecsely deciphered by the engraver. P89 Bars 1-2 and 81 RLH. GE? arbiraiy ies cn bar 2 to the preceding note in bars 1 and 81 Bars 6 and 30 R.H. The accent in bar 6 and its absence in the ana- ogous bar 90 could be intended by Chopin. itis impossible, however, to exclude an error ofthe engraver — the adciton of ne superfiious accent in bar 6 or its oversight in bar 80. °-4 ar 24 RH, Dotted shy is introduced arbitrary onthe first beatin GE2, Such unification of analogous bars is completely unjustieg in view of Chopin's distinct stiving at dversitying the successive repeti- tions ofthis phrase ofthe Mazurka, 13, Mazurka in A minor, Op. 17 No. 4 Sources and editorial principles —as in Mazurka in Bs, (Op. 17 No.1 (withthe exception of FES which does not contain annotations} P-48 Bar 55 LH. The main text comes from FE (-rEE), and the variant — from GE. The diferent version of GE could be the result of the en- graverss error or Chopin's correction. No other deals in this opus ingicate that Chopin prootread GE, but adjaining opera do contain single interventions by the composer 13Source Commentary 14, Mazurka in G minor, Op. 24 No. 1 Sources [A Autograph fai copy of the whole opus (National Library, Warsaw), A Served asthe basi forthe frst German edton GE1 Fist Gorman edition, Brotkopf & Hartol (5647), Leipzig January 1836. GEt ro-created tho text of A rathor cavotuly, but with numerous changes of graphic detail which occasionally also influenced the musi cal sense. Chopin probably dd not correct GET. There are copies of {GEt with diferent prices on the covers. GE2 Second German editon (same publisher and number), after 1852, Which corrects, as @ rule in accordance win A, the majority of errors {and faults of GE. GE =GE! and GE2 FE First French edition, M. Schlesinger (MS. 1070), Paris December 1835, made on the basis of GET, In the proots of FE Chopin into luoed a numer of improvements, FED, FES, FEJ — as in Mazurka in Ft minor, Op. No.1 EE First English ection, Wessel & C° (W & C° 1645), London Apri 1836. EE is based on FE and was not corrected by Chopin, Editorial Principles ‘We base our text on FE as the last authentic source, compared with A. We take into consideration cnanges and other annotations in FED and FES. P-4® pars 9 and 51 LH. GE (-oFE-EE) mistakenly o-created the motf slur occurring in A over a pair of chords asa tie sustaining the note g Bar 13 LH. In A (-9GE) the third crotchet lacks the note d in the ‘chord, It was added by Chopin inthe proofs of FE (-»EE), P47 Bar 33 LH. The first note in A (->GE) Is Bb. In the proots of FE (EE) Chopin changed itto Bb, ar 57 LH. The main text comes from FES where it was writen by ‘Chopin, The variant is vorsion of remaining sources (recorded in A ‘and GE with sight imprecision). The change introduced in FES corre ‘sponds tothe improvement in bar 59 (sea commentary below), Bar 59 RLH. The onty proposed version isthe one written by Chopin in FED and FES, ie. thase extant pupils’ copies which bear traces of ‘Work together with pupils. The remaining sources contain a version as i bar 3 and analog. This type of variation of the melodic ine was very characteristic of Chopin. He Introduced similar changes, also in tho form of later corrections, in Mazurkas in C, Op. 24 No, 2, bars 102-103; in E minor, Op. 41 No. 1, bar 12; In C minor, Op. 56 No. 3 bar 103; in Ft minor, Op. 59 No. 8, bars 117 and 125. Bars 61-62 FH, The long slur given in the variant was added by ‘Chopin in FES. 15. Mazurka in C major, Op. 24 No. 2 Sources and editorial principles — as in Mazurka in @ minor, (Op. 24 No.1 (except for FED and FES which do not contain annotations). °-48 Bar 1 GE1 (-»FEEE) mistakenly gives 108 in the metronome mark ing, We give the correct value according to A (-»GE2) Bar 5 LH. In A (-9GE) the first chord is the same as the following ‘ones. In the proofs of FE (->EE) Chopin changed f into @” Cf. com- mentary to bar 87. °-49 Bar 37 LH, Some ofthe later collected editions arbitrary change the top note in the second chord from eto "(analogously to bars § and 14 83). Inthe ultimate version of bars 5, $7 and 88, corrected by Chopin (cf. commentary to bars 5 and 88) the second chord occurs in two forms: basic, wth f (corresponding to bar 9 and analog.) in bar 5 and 89, and a variant one with in bar 37, The repetition in ths bar of the ‘Ariner chord better distinguishes harmonica the return ofthe main theme ofthe Mazurka trom the previous section in F. Bar 64 LH. A (-»GE) has tho sich ob! as tho socond and thitd crotchats. In the proofs of FE (EE) Chopin added ab on the second beat, Some ofthe later collected edtions arbitarly changed the sith to iad also on the tid best Bars 70-88 ALM. In A this whole fragment is in distinctly smaller serpt, whose purpose was probably 10 sttess the accompaniment nature of the LH. An adcttional — apa from P — marking of dy- namics for the RH. (sempre piano) confims the significance which Chopin attached toa distinct renaiton of suitable dynamic proportions for both hands. In GE (-+FE-EE) tis passage corlained notes of normal size, which could have possibly inclined Chopin to draw the engravers attention tothe necessity of difereniating the size of notes in Etude in Ab, Op. 25 No.1 and Prelude in F# minor, Op. 28 No. 8 With the aid of appropriate annotations in manuscript bases for the first edtons. In our editon the authentic notalion appears in print for the fst tie. Bar 89 LH. The second chord in A (-2GE) is the same as the fist fone. Inthe proots of FE (-%EE) Chopin changed o” into". Ct. com- mentary t bar 37. Bars 98 and 102-103 RM. Versions contained in A (-sGE) ate as in appropriate bars 14 and 18-19. Chopin changed them in te proots of FE (EE) Bar 112 LH. In A (-»GE1) the top note is tied to ts predecessor. In the proofs of FE (-¥EE) Chopin changed ito 16, Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 24 No. 3 Sources ‘Al Autograph of an earlier version of the Mazurka, dated "Dresden 22 September 1835" (lost, photocopy in the Chopin Socioty, Warsaw). Remaining sources and editorial principles — as in Mazurka in G ‘minor, Op. 24 No.1 (except for FED which does nat contain annotations, P82 Bars 12 (2. voila) and $6 (1. volla) L. H. The third erotehet in A (GE) isthe sixth ca. In the proots of FE (-%EE) Chopin removed in both bars Bars 13-19 LH. Originally all the chords were notated as crotch, fenclosed wih one slur in AI and givan the marking legato in bar 13 in A (9GE->FE-EE). Subsequently, in A Chopin distinguishes shorter ‘motifs with slurs and rests, carelessly leaving the legato, ow contra- ‘tory ta the new conception. This is the reason why it isnot ineluded in the text Bars 20.21 FH. Chopin wavered whether to begin the repetition of rete 2 wth syropaton or nat Al haste lowing version ——s SS pation (our variant), andi the proofs of FE (-sEE) Chopin ace a {rain ex), Ct Polonase in © mine, Op. 40 No.2 bar 97-88, (368) doss not contain synco- P53 ar 93 RH. The grace-note before the triplet was added by Chopin in the proots of FE (-sEE)17. Mazurka in B flat minor, Op. 24 No. 4 Sources and editorial principles — as in Mazurka in G minor, Op. 24 No.1 (except for FES which does not contain annotations). ®-§2 Bars 10-11 The main text contains the A (-»GE2) version character tic forthe mast consistent volce-leaging in the RLM. Later changes make it dificult to estabish the ultimate text. GE1 (»FE-EE) over: looks ties joining octaves Fin the FH. It i possible that Chopin later accepted ths version since he did not reinstate the ties In the roots of FE or in FED. Moreover, in FED Chopin introduced a change inthe LIM. in bar 10 (adding h which raises ab" to 2’) Bar 18 LH. The main text comes ftom A (-»GE), and the variant — from FE (EE). The absence of any traces of corrections on the ‘second beat in FE and the unchanged analogous bars 50 and 112 lead to the assumption that Chopin did not change the A version in FE but coracted an error commitid by the engraver. The FE version cannot, therelore, be regarded as ultimate. Bar 26 RL. On the thi boat A has nth upper Voie the eroncous inytnn Jd wich GE: changed to JY and GE2 1 J¥4. cropin corrected his mistake in FE (-sEE) Bar 29 FLH. Due to a misreading of A, the note ca the beginning of the barn GE (-»FE-sEE) mistakenly has a separate cratchet stom. Bars 96-97 and 98-99 FL, Over the barnes we re-create the nota tion in A, It must be stressed that the manner of wring slurs in Cho- pin's manuscripts makes it possible to distinguish them easily from ties. There is ne doubt that at the beginning of bars 37 and 99 the nate "Is to be sustained, and ob” — sounded, The omission In GE1 (GFEEE) ofthe stem prolonging 8" in bars 36 and 98 rendered the tio sustaining this note (overlooked in the frst edtions in bars 98-99) meaningless. n tum, in GE (9FEEE) tho slur above both a as: ‘sumed the form of ate sustaining this note, As a resuit, some of the later collected edtions do not sustain the note el, and the large: ‘majority — sustain the note ars 45 and 107 LLM, Some ofthe later collected editions give these bars a uniform version. Bars 56:57 GE1 (FEE) overlooks the ie which in A (->GE2) Sustains the note bb across the baring Bars 92 and 83 LH. A (-»GE) doos not contain AB, at the beginning ‘of bar 92 oF Abin the chord in bar 83. Chopin added those notes in the proofs of FE (EE). °°7 pars 127-126 LH. The main tex isa version introduced by Chopin in the proofs of FE (EE). Inthe varant we give the A (->GE) version in Which the accompaniment is realized consistently in throe-note cords. The majoty of tne lator collected odtions accopt the triadic version in the last chord of bar 127 changing aroitarly bb into. 18. Mazurka in C minor, Op. 30 No. 1 Sources [A] Thore is no extant autograph. FC Copy ay Fontana, made upon the basis of [A] (National Library, War aw). Aller the introduction of changes and supplements by Chopin FC sorvod as the bass forthe fist German edton. FE Fitst French edition, M. Schlesinger (M.S. 2489), Paris December 1837, FE is based on [A] and was corrected by Chopin FED, FES, FEJ — as in Mazurka in Ft minor, Op. No.1 Source Commentary GE First German edition, Bretkopt & Hartel (5851), Leipzig January 1838. GE is based on FC and was not corrected by Cropin, There are conies of GE wit cfferent prices on the covers. EE First English ection, Wessel & C> (W & C° 2170), London November 11837. EE 's based on FE and was not corracted by Chopin, Editorial Principles \We base our text on FC compared with FE, with particular attention pald to Chopin's corections inthis edition. We include annotations in FED and FES. In this Mazurka FE has only fow dynamic markings: in bars 1,20, 80-88 and 36, Ibis much more proba thatthe markings in FC were supplemented (by {Chopin or with his participation) than removed fram FE. Contrasts of dynam les and expression are characteristic ofthe entire opus. 19. Mazurka in B minor, Op. 30 No. 2 Sources and editorial principles — as in Mazurka in C minor, (Op, 30 No.1 (except for FED and FES which do nat contain annotations). P80 Bar 1 FE (4EE) contains Allegretto. In FC (-»GE) Chopin chang- ditto Vivace. Bars 29 and 61 LH. FE (-sEB) mistakenly lacks the note gt on the second beat. per Bar 48 LH. FC (-»GE) has fin the chord onthe thir best. gf in FE (GEE) Is probably the result of Chopin's correction, Bar 64 FC (-»GE) has the same ending as in bar 32. We give the version introduced by Chopin in the proots of FE (->EE), 20. Mazurka in D flat major, Op. 30 No. 3 Sources and editorial principles — as in Mazurka io C miner, ‘Op. 30 No. 1 (except for FED and FES which do nat contain annotation). Par 26 RH. The main toxt comes trom FC (-»GE), andthe variant — trom FE (-s€€), RH. Some of the later collected eations arbirarly Introduced the rythm J on the last beat Bar 83 LH. In the third chord FC (->GE) has the adaltonal note dh Most arguments (Ihe possiblity of an errr by the copyist in FC or Chopin's corrections in FE, the economy of sound) speak in favour ot a three-note chord in FE (->EE). Bar 40 AH, The absence ofa chromatic sign defining the pitch ofthe top note inthe tril formally indicates ci”. This isnot decisive owing to humerous oversights of his type made by Chopin e.g. in bar 23 and 93 of this Mazurka or in Mazurka in BS, Op.17 No.1, bar 36). The harmonic aspect also does not allow us t0 stato unambiguously \whothor Chopin had in mind o¥ orc since this bar is transitory, with functionally ambiguous diminished seventh chords, iH. In FC (->GE) the note 68 with atl has the value of a crotchet. We give a minim due to the possibly of Chopin's correction in FE. (6). This atflerence nas no practical impact on performance. Bar 55 R.H. On the first beat we give FC (->GE) version asthe main one; equal quavers cortespond bette to the version ofthe mot rhyth- ically expanded in bars 55-56. A dotted rhythm in FE (-»EE) could be the result ofthe engraver's misinerpretatin of A. LH. In GE the oversight ofthe chord on the third bea in FC Is supple mented by ares. 15Source Commentary °° gars 68-69 RLM. The main text comes from FC (-%GE). The absence ofa to sustaining in FE (-¥EE) could be an ordinary oversight on the engraver's part. Nonetheless, we give this version as a vatiant since while correcting FE Chopin could have removed the te in order to obtain a thymic and melodic analogy wih bar 65, 21. Mazurka in C sharp minor, Op. 30 No. 4 Sources and editorial principles — as in Mazurka in C minor, (Op. 30 No.1 (except for FES which does nat contain annotation). P85 pare 19-20 LM. In FE the minims fare mistakenly tied in those bars instead of bars 17-18. Some of the later collected editions repeated this error and added an analogous tle aso in bars 115-116, Bar 21 The accent below the thid dit is contained in FC (9G) and under a’ — in FE (-sE€), Bar 31 In FC (-sGE) double notes atthe beginning of the bar have the valu ofa dotted minim, creating the lower voice; thore is no pedal in bars 31-82. We accept the FE (-»EE) version, probably corrected by Chopin °° Bars 53-84 PL, FC (-»GE) does not contain the minim gf in bar 54 ‘and the te joining to gt in bar 53. This is probably an oversight by the copyist iis also possible that Chopin added the tie and note in the prools of FE (EE). Bars 55-57 We give execution markings contained in FC (->GE). FE (GEE) has the same markings here asin bars 38-41: poco ritenu- to, in tempo and sempre piano, which could render this section sightly monotonous. Para LH. FC (-sGE) overlooks of in tho chords. Ct bar 7. Bars 96-97 The te joining ct between these bars is contained in FE (OEE), Bar 101 L.H. FE (->EE) has three identical chords (as in bar 8). In FC (GE) Chopin deleted the frst chore and wrote the version given byus. Pars 125 and 136 Markings given in the main text come from FC (9G), and those in the footnote — trom FE (-sEE). Bars 127-129 LH, The last chords of bars 127 and 128 and the first cords in bar 129 in FC (-3GE) do not contain notes ct" (besides, their presence in FC cannot be entirely excluded). Three-note chords in FE ( 9EE) are much more probable, since they prepare the chro ‘matic chordal passage in bars 129-132. 22. Mazurka in G sharp minor, Op. 33 No. 1 Sources ‘A Autograph (National Library, Warsaw) intended as the basis for he frst German eation FE Copy by Fontana (Historical Museum, Luly), most probably made upon the basis of a lost autograph which was eertier than A, FC Served as the basis fr the fst French ection GE1 First German edition, Brekkopt & Hartel (6886), Leipzig November 1838. GE1 is based on A, changing the order of the Mazurkas and inoducing sight changes and supplements. Chopin dia not take part in its production, There are copies of GEI with diferent covers GE2 Second Gorman ecition (same publisher and number) introducing ‘2 number of arbitrary changes. GE =GE! and GE2, 16 FE1 First French edilon, M. Schlesinger (M.S. 2714), Patis October 1838. FEE is based on FC and was corrected by Chopin FE2 The second impression of FE’, introducing, probably under the super- vision of Chopin, small changes in relation fo FEY FE = FE and FEZ FED, FES, FEJ —as in Mazurka in Ft minor, Op. 6 No.1 EE First Englsh edition, Wessel & C” (W & C® 2278), London November 11898, EE is based on FET and was not corrected by Chopin Editorial Principles \Weo aso our text on A, and tako into consideration Chopin's corrections of FFE and annotations in FED, FES and FE P-7° ar 1 At the beginning ofthe Mazurka A (-»GE) has Mesto. While iting FC (-9FE-EE) Fontana read it mistakenly as Presto, Chopin corrected this error in all extant pupils copies: in FES and FEJ to Lento, and in FED to Mesto. Bars 1-48 In all sources this Mazurka has four sharps as its key sig- nature, Chopin was prone to this type of uncertain (cf. e. 9. com- mentary to Mazurka in Cr minor, Op. 63 No. 3, bars 33-48). The fith sharp is added to the key signature at the beginning ofthe composi- tion in FES. Bars 2 and 38 PLM. A (->GE) and FC do not contain ati joining both ff. Lis addod in FEY in bar 2 and in FEZ in bar 98, presumably by Chopin. EE also has these tes. Bars 4-5 RLM. GE2 ted din thse bars, analogously tothe version of bars 40-41 in A and GE (ct. commentary to those bars), Bar 16 LH. In FC (FEE) both f in this bar are ted. In A (->GE) CChopin crossed out the to joining those notes. Bars 16-17 RH. In A (-»GE) and FC the notes f” are not ted over the barline. In FE (-9EE) a to was presumably added by Chopin, Bar 19 PLM. A (-3GE) contains a mordent which in FC (-sFE-sEE) was probably overiooked. P-7" ars 29-30 L1H, FC (-»FE-sEE) contains the same version asin bars 21-22 In A (GE) Chopin changed i tothe form given by us. Bars 94-36 LLM, There are no lower actave notes at the beginning of the bars in FC (-9FE-EE). Chopin added thom in A (->GE}. Bars 40-41 ALH, in & (->GE) notes ot” are ted across the barine ‘We cannot exclude the possiblity that this to was mistakenly placod by Chopin while witing or correcting A. The te is missing in FC (->FE DEE) and there is no corresponding tie in analogous bars 45, Itwas extremely rare for Chopin to begin a bar by sustaining all he notes in 8 chord, which here deforms one of the basic motifs ofthe Mazurka ‘This i the roason why we give the version containing the te only as avarant 23. Mazurka in C major, Op. 33 No. 2 Order of Macurkas ‘The frst German edition arbirarly changed the order of Mazurkas, giving [No.2 to the Mazurka in D, and No. 3 — to Mazurka in C. Mazurkas in GH ‘minor and D were also included into an album of compositions by various ‘authors, published at this time. Changes in the order of Mazurkas in the en- ‘ie Op. 33 were probably meant to relain a uniform arrangement of pages in both publications, as evidanced by the double pagination of Mazurkas in GE ‘minor and B. We give the authentic order contained in manuscripts and ro- raining frst editions,Sources and editorial principles as in Mazurka in G¥ minor Op. 33 No. 1. FC of this Mazurka is part ofa private collection (photocopy in ‘the Chopin Society, Warsaw). 7 Bar 19 FL. GE arbitrary added 4 before f. Bar 15 RH. FC (4FE-+EE) mistakenly has o as a semiquaver, an ‘error corrected by Chopin in all extant pupils’ copies. Bar 16 RH, The beginning of the bar in FC (+FEEE) does not hhave the note e’. In FED Chopin corrected this oversight probably ‘committed by the copyist Bars 22 and 30 \. H. GE mistakenly omitted con the second beat, ars 28-29 R.H. Some of the later collected ealtons arbitrary ted the notes c’-o6* between bars. A repettion of the third in the source version creates a rhythmic analogy: phrases begin with notes sustain. fed in bars 17 and 21, and sounded in bars 25 and 29 Bar 32 R.H. The main text comes trom A (-sGE2) and FC, and the variant — from FE (EE). It is dificuk to resolve wnether the FE version, imaeccably sounding, and slighty easier in execution, is the result of Chopin's corecton or the engravers oversight. GE1 misak ‘only contains only a single grace-not, the sixth cab 24. Mazurka in D major, Op. 33 No. 3 Order of Mazukas ‘800 Mazurka in ©, Op. 38 No.2. Sources and editorial principles — as In Mazurka in GE minor, (Op. 33 No.1 (except for FED and FES which do not contain annotations). FC of this Mazurka sin Aucitorio del Radio e Televisions in Turin, e713 p74 P71 Bars 8-9, 24-25 and analog. LH. In & and FC the lowest notes (d or ‘A respectively) are not ted over the barnes. In this way, the accom= ppaniment in bars 9, 25 and analog. retains a characteristic melodic {and thythmic autine, corresponding to bars 1 and 17. Engravers of FE (-3E6) and GE regarded this to be Chopin's oversight and arbitra fly added ties sustaining also those notes. Chopin applied a similar technique in Mazurka in B, Op. 41 No. 2, bars 4-5 and analog,; hore also, one of the first editions mistakenly supplemented tes in three ‘ut of four places, Our eliton isthe fst fo rit the authentic version. Bars 32-38 and 104-105 FLH. In bars 32-33 FE overooked the tie sustaining the minim an A (->GE) and FC. In bars 104-105 FE mis: {akonly ead this te asa slur joining notes gf’ (EE contains such an incorect sur in both passages). Bars 54-55 and 62-63 LH, We give the A and FC version in which the top semiquavers of the bars are a’, a” in bars 54-55, and bs, bis in bars 62:63. None of the fist editions re-created ths version correctly in bar 54 GEt doos not contain > lowerng dto d", and before bi in ‘bar 63 GE1 and FE (-sEE) has only a single b. GE2 contected the ‘orto in GEt but added an unnecessary # before ain bar $5. Dis Crepancies and inconsistencies in the original edtions mean that the later collacted edtions contain seven diferent and usually unauthentc combinations of those notes. Bar 56 F.H. The main text comes from FE ands probably the resut of Chopin’ corection. The variant isa version ofthe remaining sources, Bars 121, 123, 129 and 131 LH. The main text isa version added by ‘Chopin inthe proofs of FE (8), the variant comes trom A (->GE) ‘and FC. Those versions are musically equivalent: gt" inthe original Version grants this moti a Lydian character, often encountered in Mazurkas, gi'-o inthe later version gives a slighty more regular harmonic progression Source Commentary Bars 132-139 RH, Some of the later collected ealtions arbitrary tie notes d between bars, Bar 133 RLH. Inthe proofs of FE1 (-rEE) Chopin added the note a st the baginning of tho bar. Bars 139-195 Performance markings in the musical text come from A (GE). FC does not contain ether such markings nor dashes ater smorzando in bars 131-192. This incomplete version was supple- mented in FE (EE) by means of dashes running to the end of the ‘composition. This at fst glance obvious supplement was conducted probably without Chopin's paricipaion 25, Mazurka in B minor, Op. 33 No. 4 Sources and editorial principles — as in Mazurka in Gt minor, (Op, 33 No. 1. FC ofthis Mazurka'sin the Library of Congress in Washington. ‘The 24 bars appearing in sources between bars 6-87 (see below for com. ‘mentary to those bars) are a repetition of bars 29-46 and inthis commentary are marked with numbers in square brackets: [28-46) p80 Bar 1 A(-»GE) and FC do not contain any marking of tempe-charac- ter. Mesto appears in FE (->EE). Chopin probably intended it to replace the mistaken Presto in Mazurka in Gt minor, Op. 33 No. 1 (80 commentary to that Mazurka); due to a misunderstanding it was aserived to Mazurka in B minor which was devold of marking, tis doubtul whether Chopin used such a rare marking twice in a single ‘oyele of mazurkas. Bar 5 and analog. RH. A (-»GE) and FC contain aw signs over a! FE (EE) does not have such a signin bars 5, 29, and [29]. Ths i probably an oversight on the engraver's part since there are no traces of removing this signin those passages. From the musical point of View it also seems unlikely that the omaments were intetionally re ‘moved by Chopin on account of the mordents in bars 1 and 3, and ‘especially in bar 7. CL commentary to bar 1 and analog. Bar 9 Dynamic markings come trom FES, Bars 9-12 and analog. LH. Ties joining notes ct in bars 9-10, 11-12 and analog. were added by Chopin inthe proots of FE2. Bar 11 and analog. RH. A (-»GE) and FC contain sv signs over b Inthe praots of FE1 Chopin removed them in bars 11, 35 and 173. We include this correction algo in bar 75, since when proot-teading Chopin auite often missed one ofthe recurring similar passages. By avoiding the slighty monotonous tripe repetition of the mordent on this version shows distincly the connection between phrases in bars 9-10 and 11-12. Later supplements of ties sustaining of in the LH. (soe commentary to bar 9-12) confim Chopin's striving lo distinguish ‘wo pairs of bars Bars 58 and 98 L.H. FC (->FE-sEE) does not contain 68” inthe chord con the second beat. Bars 86-87 Between these bars, A (->GE) and FC (FEE) incu- de 24 bare which area repettion of bars 23-46. Chopin crossed them ut from all three extant pups’ copies. This was probably not a change of the conception of the Mazurka’s form but a correc: tion of an error commited in A: as was his habt, Chopin numbered the bars go that in further repetitions they could be marked in an ab- breviated manner with numbers; while writing numbers marking bars 185-102, he mistook the range ot bars to be repeated, presumably focusing attention only on the beginning (oar 1) and end (bar 62) of this fragment. Chopin made this type of error by marking the number of ropoated bars also in the fourth movement of the Sonata in Bb ‘minor. 09.3. 7Source Commentary 8 pars 106, 114, 122 and 130 LH. In the sources the chord on the sec: fond beat has diferent sonorty. A contains the four note chord bet! e'gH" four times. GE1 overooked ct’ upon three occasions (bars 106, 122 and 130), a mistako corrected in GEZ according to A. FC ‘and orginally FE also overlooked the samo ct, ging the three-note chord b-e'-gt" four times. In the proofs of FET Chopin changed this chord in three passages: in bar 106 to b-ct-g, and in bars 114 and 530 —to a fourenote chord as in A, Leaving tne uncorrected bar 122 certainly an oversight, buts not certain whether Chopin wished to leave the A version (four-note chord) or introduce a version analog: fous to bar 106 (bet'g1'). The sighty diferent harmonic context of bar 122 renders the frst eventuality much more probable: the removal ‘of 6 would leave the thi (") of the seventh chord in bar 121 with ‘out a rescltion, Bars 110 and 126 LH. A (9GE?) and FC (->FEEE) have the sith 1-2! onthe second beat. GE2 changed it arial tothe three-note chord gt" Bar 197 LH. FEJ and FES contain the figures 4 1 below the notes f and ft. This fingoring, not in kooping with authentic articulation, is probably mistaken (it should read 1 4) Bars 137-151 We supplement the numerous sight oversights in these bars (dots, ius, dynamic signs) by comparing analogous passages. Bar 141 and 149 F.H.A (->GE1) has the thie ot”.o" al the beginning cof bar 141 and a single on bar 149. Tho unclear script of FC was do- ciphered in bot bars in FE (-sEE) as o' Certain foaturs of tho script iA alow us to assume that Chopin supplemented the original single by the note of” in bar 141, The absence of an appropriate correc- tion in bar 149 shouldbe regarded as an oversight, since there seem tobe no musical arguments in favour of dferentiting those bars. Bar 142 and 150 LM, Some of the lator collected esitons arbirarly changed the first rate fom Fé tof. Chopin's corrections in A — the change of fo F¥ in bars 142 and 143 — are unquestioned proot of bis intentions, Bar 199 & and FC contain risveliato (witha speling eror. Presum ably it was precisely this mistake which influenced the omission ofthis ‘marking in GE1 (GE2 has risvegliato) and FE (EE). On the other hhand, itis possible that Chopin removed it intentionally in the proofs of FE. In thal case, f added by him in FED should be regarded as binaing Bar 200 RLH. The main text comes from A (-¥GE}, and the variant — from FC (>FE-EE). The probably erronoous FC vorsion must be ro ognized as accepted by Chopin, who inthe proots of FE2 corrected ‘several FEY mistakes in this bar and did not restore the A version 26-29. Mazurkas, Op. 41 Order of Mazurkas ‘The fst German eation arbitrary changed the order of Mazurkas, transter- fing Mazurka in Ct minor to the beginning of the opus. We give the authentic order contained in manuscripts and remaining fst editions, acdtionally con firmed by Chopin's correspondence (see cations About the Mazurkas. proceding the musical txt), 26. Mazurka in E minor, Op. 41 No. 1 Order of Mazurkas — see above Mazurkas, Op. 41. 18 Sources [As Sketch entitled Mazur and dated "Palma 28 November [1838] (photo- copy inthe Chopin Society, Warsaw) ‘A Fragment of autograph inclusing bars 1-28 and 41-56 (Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris). The complete A served for making the copy, and then — probably atter Chopin had introduced certain changes — as ‘the basis forthe fst French elton ‘Ao Occasional autograph entiled Mazur (Gesellschaft der Musktreunde, ‘Vienna), containing a version close tothe utimate one. Ao is presum- ably later than A; variant versions of some fragments can be regarded as equivalent XE Copy by unknown copyist (National Library, Warsaw), made upon the basis of A and inlended as the foundation for he frst German edition, Chopin checked and corrected XC. FE1 Fist Fronch edition, E. Trouponas (T. 878), Paris Dovomber 1840, based on A. FE2 Second impression of FEI, January 1841, in which Chopin made humerous changes, FES Third impression of FEI, probably corrected by Chopin. FE = FES, FEZ and FES, FED, FES, FEJ — as in Mazurka In Ft minor, Op. 6 No.1 GE1 First German edton, Breitkopt & Hartel (6335), Leipzig December 1840. GE1 was based on XG; i introduced revisions and arbitrary changed the order of Mazurkas. Thore are copies of GET with cifor- ent prices on the covers. GE2 Second German edition (same publisher and number) ater 1852, hich conscted many mistakes trom GET but arbitrarily made some changes. This commentary cites GE2 only in those cases when it influenced the later collected ecltions GE = GE! and GE2, EE Fist English edition, Wessel & C (W & C® 3558), London December 11840, EE s basod on FE2 and was not cotrocted by Chopin Editorial Principles \We base our text on FES as the last authentic source, compared with A. We take into consideration Chopin's annotations in XC and variants in Ao. °° ar 10 RH. The main text comes trom A (-oXC-GE, FE-EE), ‘andthe variant — from Ao Bars 17-16 and 41-42 PH. GE mistakenly tes notes ff between bars 441-42, The majority of the later collected editions ties fin both pas- sages, probably as an analogy to bars 25-26 and 49-50, This is an Unjusttiog arbitrary decision since inthe sources Wat the beginning of bars 18 and 42 is taken into the LH. and sounded together with at” land A’, while atthe beginning of bars 26 and 50 itis taken into the UH, and sustained together with & P89 ars 33:34 LH. A (->XC-1GE, >FE1-oFE2 EE) and Ao have no tie sustaining ft appears in FES in bar 34 (which marks the begin ning ofa new tine) together wih a correction ofthe error on the thir beat in bar 83 (FEY and FEZ have gt’ as the lower note). Both changes were made probably by Chopin, Bar 94 PL. FE (-+EE) overlooks a over ot. Bars 39-40 LH. The main text comes from FE (-sEE) and Ao, and ‘the variant — from XC (-»GE!). The non-preservation of this frag ‘ment in A makes it impossible to estabish precisely the origin of the dtloronce. Tho FE version is undoubtedly later and thus we give it as ‘the main one. Bars 59-61 The main tex comes ftom XC (-»GE) and FE (EE), and the variant — from Ao,27. Mazurka in B major, Op. 41 No. 2 Order of Mazurkas — see above Marukas, Op. 41 Sources —asin Mazurka in E minor, Op. £1 No. 1 withthe exception of non-existent autographs. (A dents the lost autograph which served as the basis for XC and FE! Editorial Principles ‘We base our text on FES asthe last authentic source, compared with XC. P87 par 48 LM, As the fist quavor XC mistakenly has ofa, which in GEE Is changod into ca", and in GE2 — into ca’-b". Tho XC ver- sion is eter entialy a mistake commited by he copyist or the orignal version (wn an overlooked f next to.) later changed by Chopin to {a chord which we give according to FE (->EE), Bar 51 LH. On the second beat FE (-»EE) has a chord, and XC (2GE) — a seventh. One of these versions is presumably incorrect but without an autograph it's impossible to say wnicn. Styistically, the FE chord appears sighty more probable, and the FC seventh is more convenient forthe pianist Bar 57 L1H. Some ofthe later collected editions arbitrary add Cr to the authentic ct on the second beat 28. Mazurka in A flat major, op. 41 No. 3 Order of Mazurkas — see above Mazurkas, Op. 41 Sources —asin Mazurka in E minor, Op. 41 No. t withthe exception of non-existent autographs. (A) denotes the lost autograph which served as the basis for XC and FEI Additional source: Kle Mazurkas edited by J. Kleczyfski (Gebethner and Wolt, Warsaw 1882) containing a variant ofthe ending added by Chopin inthe copy of his pupil Marcelina Czartonyska, Editorial Principles We baso our text on FES as the last authentic source, compared with XC. We cite the variant of the ending made avaiable by Chopin's pup °-89 Bars 1-4 and analog. In XC and FE the sluring of the theme over bars 1-2, 34 and analog, dfs slighty and is inconsistent in bath sourcos, based direcy on [A]. Since tho occurring diforonces aro an ‘accidental imprecision, we compared all analogous passages and accepted the most frequent realizations: slurs in bars 1, 3, nd analog. end on the first quaver ofthe follows ingbar — slurs in bars 2, 4, and analog, begin with the fist quaver ofthe bar. Bars 6, 8 and analog, RLM. The main text comes trom FE (>EE), and the variant — from XC (-»GE). The non-preservation of [A] makes it impossible to establish precisely the origin of this dtference, The FE Version is undoubtedly later and thus we give it as the main one. See Performance Commentary. Bars 22-28 and analog. F.H. EE and the marty ofthe later collected ‘editions arbitrary te notes c” between bars. The furtner development ofthe phrase — a repetition of the moti from bar 23 @ second higher in bar 24 — justifies sounding cin bar 23 °-® Bar 43 LH, The main text comes trom FES where b raising bi to b* was most probably added by Chopin (FE1 and FE2 have no sign; EE Source Commentary adds 6). The variant is the XC (-»GEt) version where, in tum, b ber {ore bb" was probably added by Chopin. The change in FES is cetain- ly later, ang thus we give ths version asthe main ane. Inthe phrase in bars 41-44 and its imitation in bars 45-48 contain a alferent tp note (b'.b8). A similar dference in repeating the moti in the inner voice is foundin, e.g. Scherzo in E, Op. 54, bars 534 and 538 (gf) Bar 45 and 47 LM. We give the script of XC (-sGE), adding crotchat stems toa, probably overlooked by the copys In XC (->GE) the slur from B to a between bars 45-46 is certainy a misread te sustaining note a, as seen in FE (EE). in FE (EE) the simpltied script, ident- cal in Sound, blurs the imitation of the RLH. pnrase from bars 41-44 Bar 49 FLH. in XC (GE) the quaver moti begins with the note ab ‘hiss probably a mistake committed by the copyist (there is no justi cation for such an isolated appearance of ab’ botwoon gin bars 48 ‘and 50-51), Pars 63-68 XC (-»GE) and FE1 do not contain bars 61-68. In the proofs of FE2 (-»EE) Chopin added repeat signs for bars 53-60, Th's |ypo of record was probably dictated by a wish to limit the number of corrections made in print to a minimum, ang thus wo give the rope tion in oxtonso, as Chopin did in bars 1-16, Bar 76 LH. At the beginning of the bar authentic sources have even ‘quavers in bass, This version, which denotes an awkward progres- sion of parallel ninth, fs certainly incorrect (of. bar 24). Bar 82 LH. On the second beat XC (GE) mistakenly has dotted thythm. A similar enor commited by the copyist in bar 74 was cor rected by Chopin, ‘The fve-bar expansion of the ending given in the footnote comes, from Kile 29, Mazurka in C sharp minor, Op. 41 No. 4 (Order of Mazurkas— see above Mazurkas Op. 41 ‘Sources —asin Mazurka i E minor, Op. 41 No. 1 with the exception of on-exstont autographs. [A] denotes the lost autograph which served as the basis for XC and FES Editorial Principles We base our text on FES as the last authentic source, compared wih XC. We ca the annotations made by Chopin in FEA. P82 Bar 10 LH AS the fst crotcnet FE (-sEE) has E. In XC (-»GE) CChopin changedit tae °° Bar 55 FLH. The absence of next tothe top note In the bar seems to be an oversight by Chopin. Bars 49-64 have an established Cr ‘major key andthe lowering ofthe auxiliary nate on a’ is rather mprob- able. (AS a component ofthe minor subdominant chord, note ain bars 58 and 61 does not gvo rise to simlar doubts) po Bars 57-58 FL. Ties sustaining the octave af-at',overicoked in XC (GE) and FE (-sEE), were added by Chopin in FE. Bar 58 FL, FE (-sEE) overooked the grace-note a. Cf. bars 50, 52 and 60. Bars 62-63 FL. At the beginning of bar 63 in the lower voice XC (GE!) has b, and FE% dovs not contain any note, We give the ver= sion with ct ted to the minim in bar 62, introduced by Chopin in the proofs of FEZ (-2EE). 19Source Commentary 20 Bar 65 LH. The main text (chord with e') was inroduced by Chopin in the proofs of FE2 ( EE). Tho variant (empty octave) is an eacar version of X¢ (-»GE1) and FEI. In a manner characteristic of Chopin, the absence of ein this version leaves room for the erty of the th ‘matic molt in bar 6. Bar 71 ALH, FE (->EE) doss not contain ate joining g in the grace note chord with gin the previous bar. Ths is probably an oversight it ‘also possible that the te was addad by Chopin in XC (-»GE), In GE2 the grace-note is aritrariy given the form of a crossed que ver. Gf Performance Commentary. Bar 81 LH, Analogously to bar 9, the majonty of the later collactes ‘editions add e to the second crotchet. This is unjustified since the ‘sath B-gf continues the sonoriy of the samo sixth beginning the bar inthe Ful, Bars 97-101 RAH. The main text (five mordents) comes trom FE (GEE), and the variant (hree grace-notes) — from XC (-2GE). The ‘orginal version with grace-notes was changed by Chopin probably already in [A] but ater XC was prepared. We give it since itis dstnct- iy easier. CY. variants ofthis type in Balades in G minor, Op. 23, bar 178 and in A, Op. 47, bars 3 and 39 Bar 104 RAH. GEI mistakenly places et a semiquaver later, |. e. together with bt instead ofc. Bar 106 LH. Analogously to bar 110, some of the later collected ‘editions arbitrary change the it crotche rom the authentic c# to Gt. ‘Such analogy is unjustified because only Gt in bar 110 prepares the Pedal point which then lasts for eight bars (bars 111-118), Bars 112-119 PH. The main text comes from XC (-9GE%). In FE (GEE) the fst note ia bar 113 is mistakenly f#, which Chopin co: ‘ected too” in FEJ. None ofthe authentic sources contain ate janing both o between bars (t was added in GE2) although i is doubtul hater it was not overlooked, as indicated by analogy with bars 111 land 117, where the beginning ofa bar has no stroke. Bars 120, 122 and 124 Naturals lowering df to din four octaves were ‘died inthe proofs of FES. Athough the direct parcipaton of Chopin in proct-reading ot FES is not quite certain it seams rather improbable ‘hat such an essential and bold change was performed contrary to his wil Bar 121 RLH. The majorty ofthe later collected editions arbitrary ada 18" to the chord atthe beginning ofthe bar. Chopin probably wished to achieve here the same chord asin bars 123-126 Bars 197-198 FL, The main text comes ftom FE (-EE), and the variant — from XC (-GE). It's impossible to establish the chronology ‘ofthe versions owing to the absence of [A In XC the minim at the beginning of bar 137 is altered from oto af, which could ve either an ‘ordinary correction of one ofthe many errors commited by the copy: st, oF a change in tho [A] vorsion made ay Chopin. In tho fst caso, tho FE version would be lator, and in the second — the XC one. Sty istic arguments also make it impossible to distinguish decisively one ofthe versions: — in bars 136-199 the FE version has a suggestive lower voice in the F.H. wih characteristic repetitions of notes 2, at, and cf; harmonically tis more expressive in the XC version a consistent reduction of harmonic and melodic ‘loments realizes the marking smorzando already in the very con- suction of musical progress, Bar 138 F.H. The last quaver in FE (EE) isd. This error was cor- rected by Chopin n FEL. 30. Mazurka in A minor, Dbop. 42A (Gaillard) Sources [A] There isno extant autograph. FE First French edition, Chabal (C), Paris January 1841. FE is based probabiy on [A]. FEJ Asin Mazurka in Ft minor, Op. 6 No. 1 GE Fist Gorman edition, Bote & G. Bock (B & B 3959), Berin July 1855. “The origin of GE is unciear — a comparison with FE would seem to indicate that it was based on the proot copy of FE, but it would be Aifcut 1 explain why 14 years ater publeation a copy of FE omiting the last corrections was used as the basis. Editorial Principles \We base our text on FEZ with consideration for Chopin's annotations in FE Slurring. The errors and inconsistencies visible inthe sources incine us te assume that diferences between similar passages were unintended and fare the result of a careless record. Nonetheless, as a rule we keep them, ‘making slight supplements and correcting obvous mistakes. Interpretation Possibilties are presented in the Performance Commentary. By way of ‘example we give six variants of suring in bar 4 and analog in FE: ww sano]! DF wel #3 cae tre re Tre tre reel RS Bars 11, 15 and analog. RLM. In the sources note ois repeated on the third best, The majority of the later colected extions arbitrarily sustain the note e! sounded on the second beat, Bar 40 FLH. In the last chord the majotty of the later collected editions arbitrary add nate a! (analogously to bars 4,8, 98, 8 and 84). The omission of d makes it possible o avoid the unsolved dissonance and, in a manner characteristic of Chopin, leaves room forthe malody beginning in bar 4 withthe octave a2 P11 Bar 105 LH, Some of the later collected edions arbitrary add the note gon the third beat Bar 114 LH. In the sources the absence of oat the beginning of the bar is probably an oversight on the engravers part, insieated by the tie betwoen bars 113-1 14 (a mot slur would be an unjustified excep- ‘and analogous bars 116 and 118, Bar 116 RLH. At the beginning of the bar GE has the crotchet cn the lower voice. Tris is probably the orginal version, subsequenty im- proved by Chopin in the proofs of FE. Bar 117 PLM. In FEthe note d! is repeated on the thid beat. GE ar bitrarly sustains the note a sounded on the second beat 31, Mazurka in A minor, Dbop. 42B ("La France Musicale") Sources [A] There iso extant autograph. FE1 First French edition, Bureaux de la France Musicale, Pars July 1841 This Mazurka was tho thé composition in the La France Musicalealoum, containing sx works by dlifrent authors. FEI Is based surely on Al [FE2] Second French aclton, Escudierfréres, Paris 1845, containing the Mazurka published separately. [FEZ] ropeats the text of FET with slight imprecision. The editors ofthe National Edition were unable to locate a copy of [FEZ], and all information is given upon the basis of FES (sae below). FES. Third French edton, Brandus et C* (B ot C* 4840), Paris 1848. The ‘musical text of FES was most probably reprinted without changes from (FEZ, FE = FEI and FES. GE Fist Garman edition, es fils de B. Schott (6493.2), Mainz February 1842. GE re-creates the FE! text with mistakes. This Mazurka was part of a collection of works by diiferent composers ented Notre Temps {honce the usually used name ofthis composition. EE First Englisn ediion, Wassal & O° (W & C° 6316), London January 1846, EE is based on [FEZ] Editorial Principles ‘We base our toxt on FE P02 pars 16-17 and 96-97 LM. [FEZ] (->EE,FE3) mistakenly tes notes c* in bars 96-97. In the majoty ofthe later collected ealtons this unau thentc version is repeated also in bas 16-17. Bar 21 and analog. RLM. In bars 21, 29 and 101 in FE not only crotch t af but also crotchet / are lengthened by dots. We accept the rotation of bar 109 (is not longthened), characteristic of Chopin and fring a clearer voice-leading Bar 54 In the sources, rhythmic figures on the fist beat are inter: changed in both hands (a rest in the FH. a lengthening dot inthe LH). Tho slur over ino RLH. and a comparison with analogous bars ‘34, 50 and 86 make it possibi to re-create the correct arrangement of figures. Bars 56 and 61 RH. in the sources tho 4 ralsing oto dis omited in bar 56, and placed incorectly next tothe last quaver in bar 61 32. Mazurka in G major, Op. 50 No. 1 Sources [Autograph ofa fragment (bars 1-12), probably the far copy, the completion of ‘which was abarioned by Chopin (the Gropin Society, Warsaw), ‘At Autograph of the whole compositen (The Plerpont Morgan Library, Now York), intended asthe basis forthe fst French edion. [A2] Later autograph (lost), intended as the basis for tho fist German ‘ation FE1 First Fronch editon, M. Schiesingar (M. S. 3692), Paris Soptombor 1842. FE1 is based on At and was corrected by Chopin. FE2 Second French edtion (same publisher, no number), December 1842. ‘The Mazurka was included into a colection entitled 2” Keopsako dos Pianists. Chopin probably introduced small changes to the FE2 tex. FE = FE! and FE?. FED, FES, FEJ — as in Mazurka in Ft minor, Op. 6 No.1 GE1 Fist German edtion, P. Mechett (P.M. N*- 3682), Vienna September 1842. GEt is based on [A2}: its qute possible that t was corrected by Chopin GE2__ Second German edition (same publisher ané number), which impro: cisely (8, numerous oversighs) repeats the GE text. GE =GE! and GE2, EE Fist Englsh adon, Wessol & C° (W & C* 5303), London July 1842. EE is based on the proofs of FEt Editorial Principles Wo base our toxt on GET, compared with At, We tako info consideration Chopin's corrections of FE and annotations in FED. Source Commentary P-198 ars 3-4 and analog. We accept the performance markings in GE. ee Ealor string in At was deformed in FE (E6). Chopin then corected it in FE1 and FE2, dstincty aim- ing at the clear and precise phrasing of [42] (-»GE) Bars 7, 11 and analog. F\H. We give the slurring in (A2] (->GE). In remaining sources the slur is broken over the res Bars 8-9 and 64-65 R.H. Notes c are tied over the barsines in At (GFE-%EE. in bar 9 of FE — with a mistake). GE doos not contain appropriate tes which probably means that in [A2] Chopin resigned from sustaining those notes Bar 12 and analog. RLM. The grace-note wih an arpeggios contained i Al and GE' (GE? overlooks tho arpeggios in bars 12 and 68), FE (CEE) mistakenly printed the vertical are of At, indicating an arpeq- {90 as a horizontal to joining tho grace-note withthe minim 1. Bar 21 LH. The main text comes from GE, and the variant — tram ‘At (GFEEE) °-127 Bars 54-85 R.H. In GE2 the te sustaining 6" is overlooked. Bars 72-73 LH. The tie sustaining Gis found only in GE. P18 ar 73, RLM. We give the sluring in At (-9FE-+EE) since ths auto graph contains traces of improvement made by Chopin, and appar- tently the reading of slurs (A2] by the engraver of GE was imprecise: ‘more eseentaléHferences are mentioned in footnotes Bars 76-77 ALM. The tio sustaining b comes trom At. FE (->EB) ‘contains it doformed version (from a! to the and of bar 76). Is ab- sence in GE could be an aversight on the engravers part Bar 78 LH. The main text comes from At (-»FE1-sEE) and GE. The variant is @ change probably introduced by Chopin in the proofs of FE2 LH. AL the beginning ofthe bar GE has equal quavers in the uoper voice, This is probably a mistake, since parallel voces are not inde persdent here (in contrast to bars 47 and 54) LH. Over the last quavar FE (-sEE) overooks a¥ Bar 82 FLH, itis dificult o establish Chopin's ultimate intention. The main text (b') comes trom GE (itis aso in EE), and the variant (bs) from A (-sFE). Traces In GET testty to the change trom bt to b ‘only in the praofs, but tis net catain whether it was made by Chopin, (On the athor hand, the version with’, which does nat resume the changeabilty of bb and b, distinctly marked in bars 7-76, produces a rather monotonous impression and could be mistaken. Bar 96 RH. The main text comes from GE, and the variant — from At (SFESEE) Bar 109 On the tid beat GE has f°. The absence of dynamic mark: ings in Ai (4FE-EE) inclined the adtors of some of the later col lected edtions to add various aroirary supplements 33. Mazurka in A flat major, Op. 50 No. 2 Sources ‘Ai, [A2}, FEI, GEt, GE2, GE, EE —as in Mazurka in G, Op. 50 No. 1 FE FE Editorial Principles \We base our text on GET, compared with At. We take into consideration CChopins corrections in FE. 21Source Commentary 109 p10 Bar 4 LH, First edions detorm the arpeggio betore the chord with ‘a graco-note, which in At isa verical arc: in FE (->EE) a horizontal ti joins the grace-note to the minim g, and in GE the arpeggio sign ‘embraces also ab inthe LH, Bars 11, 15 and analog. RH, Only GE contains mordents Bars 59-60 RLH. In At (-»FE->EE) the transition tothe middle section has a slighty diferent form: in bar 69 ai" and g6" are crotchets and the slur ends on gal the baginning of bar 60 there s the third ob We give the improved GE version, Owing tothe fact that Chopin intro ‘duced this improvement as well asthe repetition of bars 60-67 (cf. the following comment) in the last stage of recording the composition, to the already completed (AZ) orn the proots of GE, itis highly probable that he did not coordinate the two changes, and thal the socond exo: caution of bar 60 should rote to its orignal frm, with the tid cb at the bogianing Bars 60-83 1 and EE do not contain repeat signs: they were added 'by Chopin in the proots of FE, GE also has repettions of bars 60-67 ad 68-83, Bars 61-81 LH. The majority ofthe later collected editions mistaken iy printed the slurs which in the sources join the graco-noto with tho bottom note ofthe two-note chord, and which probably denote arpeg- ios (cf. Performance Cammentary), as conventional slurs joining the ‘grace-note withthe tap note ofthe two-note chor. Bars 62-63 and analog. LH. In the prools of FE Chopin added a tie joining both AB. 34, Mazurka in C sharp minor, Op. 50 No. 3 Sources AL ‘Autograph of the frst edition of the Mazurka (Jagiellonian Library, Krakow), ‘As, (A2], FE1, GE1, GE2, GE, EE — as in Mazurka in G, Op. 50.No. 1 FE = FE Editorial Principles ‘We base our text on GE, compared with 1. We take into consideration Cho- pin's corrections in FE, pats 22 Bars 8-4, 7-8 and analog. RLH. Orignaly (in Al) thore wore ro tos sustaining the minims ct? (gt). AT (FE-+EE) contains a tie only ‘between of in bars 99-100. In this situation, te ts in all passages in (GE could be regarded as uitmate, Bar 28 RH. In At (-rFE-YEE) Chopin overlooked the minim o'. bar 120, Bars 31-32 and analog. R.H. The main tex (dt repeated in bar 82) comes from At and EE, [A2| presumably also contained this version since GE does not have tes Detween bars 81-22, and the slur over ‘wo-note chords in analogous bars 123-124 was probably a mott slur placed on the incorect side (his type of transference af slurs, regard loss of ther significance, was requently practised by the engravers of the period). The sustaining of cn bars 30-31 and ts repetition in bar 32 corresponds to the rhythm in the L.H.: the sustaining of gin bars 30-31 and the sirking of of” in bar 82. The variant (sustained at”) ‘comes from FE whare the iain bars 31-82 was added in the proofs, possibly by Chopin. Bars 92-41 and analog, Limited space and graphic complications connected with polyahonic texture are the reasons why in none of the Sources the sluting reflects Chopin’ tention fully and uneringly. In pas par ‘ur edtion, suring is the result of a comparison ofall sources, with attention paid te every factor that could cause imprecise notation Bar 58 LH. On the third beat GE has only the sixth fat". The re- maining sources have the triad f-b-d" Bar 69 \.H. The natural lowering gf to g was added by Chopin in the roots of FE Bars 77, 79, 5 and 87 LLM. The first erotche in A (-4FE-+EE) Is 8. Lowering the bass by an octave isan improvement introduced in (42) (Ge. Bar 84 LH. On the second beat Al and GE contain only at". At (GFE-sEE) has -at-e', as do all sources inthe analogous bat 52. Bars 67-88 LLM. We give the accompaniment according to GE. At (GFE EE) has a alferent version: probably with two errors. There seems to be no justification for the Absence of at the end of bar 87, and the fist din bar 88 hinders execution of the LH. part. In A, bars 81-88, originally overlooked, ‘were added on the margin ofthe page; such distraction increases the probability of commiting an error. Bar 89 L.H. In GE tho accompaniment is, probably mistakenly, tho same asin the next ba. Bar 92 RLH. The main text comes from Al (->FE-sEE), and the vari- ant inthe footnote — from Al and GE. It is rather unlikely that in (A2] Chopin consciously retumed to the original conception, abandoning a dotted thytnm which stresses the climax. Equal quavers In GE could be, therefore, an error committed by the engraver. Bar 134 and 139 LH. At the beginning of the bars, Al (>FE-DEE) contains the crotchet GF instead of a rest. The GE version accepted by us isan improvement introduced 1 (A2} — gt asthe basis of the harmony does not change ‘rom bar 134 (and feven 124) to bat 142, and from the harmon point of view is rep tion s unnecessary =the rest at he beginning of the bar grants unitorm rhythmic shape tall analogous bars 134, 196, 138-140. Bar 140 LH. As the second crolchat At, EE and GE have the fourth 1&2, We give the version improved by Chopin inthe praots of FE, Bars 157-169 We give dynamic markings from At (-sFE-sEE), ba- sicaly corresponding o those in GE but more exact and compatible withthe phrasing. Bars 171-172 FLH. Sources testy to Chopin's wavering at this point. ‘The version given by us as the main text is contained both in the earliest source — Al (with atin place of Bin bar 171 and without ate sustaining a’) and inthe last one — [2] (-»GE). The version in the variant comes from At (-sFE-sEE), The fact that in (A2] Chopin intentionally returned to the improved orignal version (a phenomenon rather frequent in his oeuvre) is tested by the enharmonic change of the seri from at" to bs Bar 172 LH. Some of the later collected editions arbitrary change the semiquaver e' to ot" Bar 177 \.H. At (>FE-0EE) does not contain cin the chor. Bars 182-183 LH, ct ls sustained in A1 (-oFE-sEE). Thero is no tle in GE. Bar 189 RH. At the boginning ofthe bar At (-oFE->EE) has an add- tional gt. We accept tho simplar GE version. LH. In GE the last quavor is mistakenly35-40. Mazurkas, Op. 56 and 59 Remarks to the editorial principles “Two cificut editorial problems in these Mazurkas from the late period in Chopin's oeuvre are particulary Intense, namely sluting and mutual relations between the more or less exacly recurrent fragments, At that tine Chopin as rule wrote three autograph fair copies, each with diferent sturs, and in repetitions dd not apply an abbreviated marking of bars by means of num bers (it ie quite possible thatthe reason for this practice was thatthe com: ser noticed the mistake in Mazurka in & minor, Op. 33 No. 4 while working ‘on it with his pupils — see commentary o bars 86-87) Diferences in sluring are due to graphic causes (e.g. limited space in the polyahonc texture leads to the absence or abbreviation of certain slurs) and ‘musical causes (smooth transtons between phrases which enforce the co- hesion ofthe compasiion bul make it ifcu o place slur interruptions); the reasons could be accidental (uneven flow af ink rom the qui producing slur interruptions, et). This is why in order not to deform Chopin's intention or re ‘duce possiblities of execution we treat the tire autnentcslurings together wherever possible and ist the most important fleeces inthe footnotes. In recurring fragments slight ctferences in the text (ehytnmie, harmonic, the presence or absence of ties) and especially in performance markings (slurs, ots, aocon's, dyramic signs etc.) occur both petween particular appear lances of analogous sections in a given source and between the sources thomsolves. iis not always possible to resolve whether Chopin intended the texto be uniform or diferentiated, We consider each situation both separate ly and in the context of a given section, the entire Mazurka and the opus as whole. The accepted text corresponds to authentic sources and is useful {or performance practice by avoiding the encumbrance of the pianist with 8 surplus of unessentialiforences and variants. 35. Mazurka in B major, Op. 56 No. 1 Sources [AI], [A2] — lost two out of three autographs serving as the bases for the first editions AS Last autograph, intended as the basis for the frst German dition (National Library, Warsaw). A3 presents theultimate form ofthe Ma- zurkabut not devoid of imprecision and errors. FE1 First Fronch edlion, M. Schlesinger (M.S. 4085), Pars August 1844 FET Is based on (At) and was most probably corrected by Chopin, ‘Second impression of FEI, which corrected many mistakes and into ‘duced certain changes. Some are certainly made by Chopin. FE =FE! ano FEZ. FED, FES — as in Mazurka in F# minor, Op. 6 No. 1. EE First English edition, Wessel & C* (W & C° 5308), London Apt 1845. EE is based on (A2] and was net corrected by Chopin First German edition, Bretkopt & Hartel (7143), Leipzig August 1844, GE1 is based on A and contains a number of unauthentic changes and supplements. ‘Second imarassion of GE1, after 1852, which corrected many errors ‘according to A and FE and introduced further arbitrary changes. In this commentary, GE2 is cited anly in those cases when it influenced the later collected editions GE =GE! and GE2, FEZ ce: Ge2 Editorial Principles ‘We base our text on A compared with FE and EE, with particular attontion tthe corrections of FE. We also take into consideration annotations in FES. See Remarks. to Mazurkas, Op. 56 and 59 ° 8 Bars 1-5, 7,9, 11 and analog. RH. The sources ditfer as regards the ‘occurrence of arpeggios next to thirds; in none do they appear con- sistently. Nonetheless, it was probably not Chopin’ intention to place ‘arpeggios diflerenty in each appearance ofthis passage. This is the reason why in all four fragments we gve arpeggios in the same bars paw ptat pie pias Source Commentary (bars 1-5, 8 and analog), choosing the statistically most frequent and ‘musically most justified. OF Performance Commentary Bar 13, 85, 99 and 155 FLH. The sources contain two types of rythm on the frst beat: equal quavers and a dotted rythm. In the main text we givo the Aa (->GE!) version. in bars 13 and 88 aqual quavers ap- pear also in FE and EE, and thus we give them asthe only text, Bar 835 of FE and bar 155 of EE contain equal quavers which we present inthe variants. GE2 arbirarly gves a dotted rhythm Ina four bars, Bars 20-21 and analog. RH. The Ne Joining both 0! is found only in bars 20-21 and 42-43 in FE. We cannot exclude the possibility that Chopin added it inthe proofs Bars 86-37 RLM. In AS (-»GE) ot” in bar 36 and o! in bar 37 are sounded only onee at the beginning of tne bar and have the value of dotted minim. Corrections in remaining three analogous passages, Visible in A3, prove that this is th original version, overiooked in the corrections. When revising Chopin quite often missed one of recurting similar passages (an analogous oversight of a correction also occut- re in [A2] (-9EE) in ar 158 ofthis Mazurka) Bar 45 P.M. The erotchet of" comes from FE, where it was probably added by Chopin. Th te jlning it to ob" in bar 44 was supplemented in the proofs of FE2, Bar 46 LLM. On the second best EE and AS (-sGE) have the sixth b= Inthe proots of FE1 Chopin probably added ef". The application of the Et-majr triad ony inthis one among mary similar bar is justified by another basis of harmony — Bb and not ob Bars 49-50, 59-64 and analog. LM, In particular sources its cifcut to find a coherent principle forthe appearance ofa triad ora sith on ‘the second beat. This could be the result of Chopin’ carelessness or ‘a1ror8 of tho engravers, Since tho corresponding section beginning in {G major (oars 103-132) doos nat show such itferences, it seems that hera too thay were unintended. This is he reason why we accept tne following princiles: — where the sources do not ifer, we leave the source version — in those cases when there are siffrences between the sources, \we choose the version appearing concurrently in analogous bars. ‘We emphasize te fact thal particular realizations are always found in ‘one of the sources and thatthe text selected by us isthe simplest in its entirety. Paricular sources difer (due tothe presence or absence of the inner note) from the version given by us in the following bars FE bars 49 and 69, EE bar 72, and AS (-»GE) bars $8 and 69. As a tule, the later collected editions aimed at a untication of similar passages. The majority introduced arbitrary changes even if the Sources did not iter. Bars 106, 114 and analog. LLM, Analogously to bare 48 and 56 some of the later collected editions abitraiy add the minim g (bars 108 and 122) ora (bars 114 and 130) to the fist sixth Bars 106 and 122 L1H. On the third beat FE1, EE and Ad (-»GE) contain an aeiitinal note e which Chopin removed in the proofs of FED Bars 107, 111 and analog. LH. Some of the later collected editions arbivaily add the note g (bar 107 and analog.) or d! (bar 111 and analog) to the sath, Bar 118 LH. There is no note cn EE and AS (-sGE). Its contained in FE, possibly added by Chopin in the prools. Bars 166 and 168 FH, The mordents in FE are found in both bars and in EE in bar 168; they are absont in AS (-»GE!). We cannot pos- sibly resolve whether it was Chopin's intention to simply gradually these figures in (A2] and AS or whether he overlooked the omaments 23Source Commentary P24 ar 189 LH. As the third erotchet AS (-sGE1) erroneously has the third Bar 189 LH. At the beginning ofthe bar FE has only te fith B.A, Bars 190 and 191 FL. FE has ne mordenis probably due to an error committed by the engraver Bars 201-204 We give the pedaling in A3 (-»GE). In EE there is no change of pedal in bars 203-204, and FE has the following pedaling: eae EY 36. Mazurka in C major, Op. 56 No. 2 Sources [As Sketch of the whole Mazurka (British Museum, London) Remaining sources and editorial principles — as in Mazurka in 8, (Op. 56 No.1 (with the exception of FES which does not contain annotatons) "25 pars 16-17, 20.21 and analog. RM. In none of the sources i the fying ‘of notes g! completely consistent. The absence ofa ten ane of seven similar passages in FE and EE (FE bars 80-81, EE bars 76-77) is probably due to an oversight. Nonetheless, in AS (GE) versions with and without the Ue occur interchangeably, producing sight-bar sections (bars 18-20 and 21-28 as woll as 68-76 and 77-84, intornaly iffereniated and mutualy analogous. Since this could nave been intended by Chopin, we give this version as a variant °-"28 ar 52 LH. On the second beat FE has a dotted rhythm, This is {2 remnant ofthe original version (the same rythm occurs also in As), and thus wo give only its umate EE and A3 (-»GE) version, Bar 70 RH. We give the sign fr according to AS (-»GE). The char- acter of this passage, slightly diffrent than in analogous bars, would usty the application ofa diferent ornament, It's possible, however, that, as is sometimes the case in Chopin's compositions, ths sign is ‘equal to a mordent, which occurs inthis bar in FE and EE. 37. Mazurka in C minor, Op. 56 No. 3 Sources and editorial principles — as in Mazurka in B, Op. 56 No.1 °-"27 gars 7-9 and analog, L.H. The comparison presented below illustrates the occurrence of ties between notes gin the sources: 13 (GE) 24 p12 p20 130 In the opinion of the ecto, this complicated state ofthe sources is probably the result of several factors: oversights by the engravers and Chopin himselt (the absence of ties in bars 31-32 in EE and in bars 167-168 in AS, the absence of ate and a note in bars 31-32 in AS) misropresentation of moti slurs c'g as tes sustaining g in bars 132.33 and 168-169 in EE (such slurs are fo be found in these bars in FE, making it possibie to detec this ertor) —presumable conception change by Chopin who for the first time placod tne moment of sounding the note g, sustained for several bars, in bar 8 (EE and A3), and during the subsequent appearances of the ‘home —a bar lator, in bars 93, 145, and 168. Having considered the above comments, the only unresolved issue is ‘whether twas Chopin's final decision that bars 7-8 should ifr inthis, otal from the ethers, or whether the original version was preserved due to carelessness. The tie joining g in bars 7-8 in FE. possibly added by Chopin in the proots, makes the second possiblity more probable, and thus we give i inthe main text (sustaining the nate gin bars 7-12 n FE is probabiy a misunderstanding since sounded on the lunaccented and weakest beat would not be audible for 30 long), Bars 16-17 and analog. RH. In AS (-»GE) the notes dare not sed in any of the three analogous placos and thus we give this version as the main one, In bars 16-17 and 152-159 appropriate ties are found in FE and EE (in bars 40-81 they are probably overiooked), a version ‘whieh we include inthe variants Bars 22:23 and 158-159 RLM. In AS (->GE) notes o are not tod between bars. FE contains a te in bars 158-169, and EE — in both those passages, Bar 36 LH. There is no mordent in EE and AS (-»GE1). Ct. bars 12, 148 and 172 Bars 98-39 EE and A3 (-»GE) have a te joining d, the bottom note in the octave in the LH. in bar 38, with executed withthe LH. in bar 38, This form of sustaining, awaward for the pianist, is certainly an terror onthe part of Chopin (c.bars 14-15 and 150-181). Bars 72-74 and 121-122 The main ext comes trom AS (-sGEt), and the variants — ftom FE and EE. Different versions of bar 74 and the {question of sustaining or repeating the notes f seem to be indepen- dent (tis impossible to exclude oversights of es in AS) Bar 86 Over the Cc octave FE and EE do not have a staccato dat andthe note cis tied to cin bar 8. Bar 93 LH. None of the authentic sources contain fats lowering and d to a’ and oS (they ware added only in GE2). Their absence, however, is certainly an oversight by Chopin, as evidenced by — the large number of flats omitted by the sources inthis passage (bars 88-105) next to notes ab and do: one in FE, eight in EE, and thirteen in Aa — the progress of the modul minor in bar 95 | the tonal contrast o bars 89-117 with adjoining passages in Bb ma- jor and the resultant absence of an expressive justification for nots d sounding very unnatural between bin bar 80 and ab in bars 95-116. tion which begins in bar 88 up to Bb Bar 100 LH, in the first chord some of the later collected edions mistakenly have c! instead of c' present in all sources. Bar 108 LH. FE contains the original version of this bar, identical ‘with bar 101 Bar 104 LH. FE and EE have two chords ¢-6e', asin bar 102. The {83 (-2GE} version given by us supplements the expressive diferen- tiation of bars 107-102 and 103-704, started wih a change of melody in bar 108.