mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors of JC

b. 71

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

c in JC

d in EF & PE
..

The c note in JC is most probably the copyist's error, which is revealed by d which is present both in EF and PE. In the two remaining similar phrases (bars 62-63 and 74-75), the chord on which the second bar is based differs significantly from the chord in the first bar; adopting the c note as the bass note would reduce the difference mainly to the omission of e1, which does not seem to change the harmonic content.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of JC

b. 71

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

a1 in chord in JC

f1 in EF & PE
..

In JC, the highest note of the chord could be considered as the so-called Terzverschreibung if it was not for the  raising f1 into f1 written only before the next chord. However, if we assume that JC copied the text of [AI] correctly, the compatible versions of EF and PE seem to confirm Fontana's access to an additional source of authentic versions, probably corrections of [AI], introduced already after JC had been written.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Terzverschreibung error , Errors of JC

b. 72

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

b1 in JC

Tied b1 in EF & PE
..

In JC, lack of the  raising b1 into b1 in bar 72 is probably an error of the copyist, similarly as lack of tie holding this note. The natural in bar 73 is featured in all sources, yet we omit it in the places where the note is sustained (cf. General Editorial Principles, p. 3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of JC

b. 72-73

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of JC

b. 74

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

d4 in JC, interpretation

Tied d4 in EF

d3 in PE
..

The pitch and possible hold of the 2nd quaver of the bar raise doubts in the sources. Both in JC and in PE, when read literally, the note is a non-sustained d3 quaver, whereas in EF – a d4 quaver held with a tie. In the case of JC, a total lack of the octave sign (embracing 7 quavers) is almost certainly a mistake. The situation is less obvious in PE, where the octave sign was not omitted, yet it starts only from demisemiquavers, while the tie is also absent in bar 70. This version, considered independently of the piece, would not raise any doubts, however, in the context of similar phrases in bars 62-63 and 70-71, it seems to be erroneous.

In the main text we give probably the only authentic version, written faultlessly in EF.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors of JC , Errors in PE