Issues : Errors in GE
|
b. 107-108
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
The version of GE, in which the first two bars of this phrase are in the key of B minor, must be erroneous. It is the engraver of GE1 or Chopin in [A] that could be suspected of an oversight – after b. 103-106, in the key of C category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors repeated in GE |
||||||||||
|
b. 109-111
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
The absence of the phrase mark over the second part of the phrase is most probably an oversight suggesting that [A] could have had two phrase marks in b. 107-110, like in analogous b. 31-34. However, it is only speculation, hence in the main text we give the unequivocal four-bar phrase mark of FE (→EE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
||||||||||
|
b. 113-124
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
The absence of accents in b. 113-118 and 122-124 in GE is most probably an inadvertence of the engraver or of Chopin himself. If it were the latter, the accents of FE could have been added by Chopin, e.g. at the stage of proofreading of FE1. The majority of the marks of FE are long accents, although their size is not homogeneous – the marks in b. 116 and 122-124 could have been considered short in a different context. A comparison with b. 87-101 (including short accents) leads to the conclusion that moving certain fragments of the R.H. part an octave higher does not influence the character of the music in the discussed bars enough to use accents of a different length. Therefore, we assume that the longer accents resulted from an inaccurate reproduction of the manuscript basis or Chopinesque proofreading; in the main text we suggest short accents (like the first time). Short accents were also introduced by EE. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||
|
b. 113-124
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
In comparison with b. 83-102, the staccato dots are less carefully marked here (there are many omissions). Unlike there, it concerns GE to a greater extent; however, it does not seem that the differences between the sources and analogous places were something more than mere inaccuracies of notation. Taking into account the above, in the main text we provide all R.H. quavers and semiquavers with dots (except the octaves beginning the bars). category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 122
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
Naturals instead of flats before the last demisemiquaver (in both hands) is probably a mistake of the engraver of GE1, repeated in GE2. In turn, in EE we can assume a revision, since an analogous version with c notes is also in b. 98 there. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , Errors in GE |
1 & d
(2) in