mUltimate Chopin

WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 63-64

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

No indication in JC

 in bar 64 in EF

 in bar 63 in PE
..

In the main text we give  in bar 63, believing that PE recreated the notation of [A] faithfully. According to us, the engraver's error cannot be totally excluded, while placing a new dynamic indication only in bar 64, as it is in EF, seems to be justified due to the following reasons:

  • the indication diminuendo in bar 62 naturally merges with the descending semiquaver figure, whose homogeneity suggests continuation of the dynamic change at least to the 4th quaver in bar 63 (cf. analogous in many aspects two-bar phrases in bars 70-71 and 74-75);
  • indicating new dynamics is more justified at the beginning of a new phrase.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 63

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

..

It is only in EF that the lower voice on the 4th quaver of the bar is written correctly. In JC it does not appear at all (there are no quavers nor slurs), which is certainly an error due to writing the upper voice with the stems facing upwards. We do not complete this notation, as it is impossible to determine what was exactly missed by the copyist. In PE, lack of the quaver flag next to the f1-b1 fourth is an obvious mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of JC , Errors in PE

b. 63

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

No sign in JC

 in EF

 in PE
..

The  hairpins visible in EF are probably – same as the remaining dynamic indications in this part – an addition by Fontana. Their meaning, despite a similar range to the relevant sign in PE, seems to be different: it is undoubtedly a diminuendo leading to  in the next bar. In turn, the sense of the sign in PE probably corresponds to a long accent.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 63

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

c in JC & EF

e in PE
..

The accuracy of e in PE is highly unlikely in this context, as the note makes the G-f2 seventh resolve on the e-e2 unison with a tripled third in the C minor chord. Therefore, we consider it to be erroneous and we adopt c featured in JC and EF to the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Terzverschreibung error , Errors in PE

b. 63

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

..

In JC, the  before the 6th semiquaver is erroneously written on the level of d2. Moreover, the manuscript also features a  before b1 on the 9th semiquaver. 
In PE, the  appears before b2 on the 4th semiquaver (due to different range of the octave sign), as well as before b1 on the 9th semiquaver (instead of a more justified sign before the 6th semiquaver).
In EF, the notation of accidentals does not differ from the one adopted by us. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Errors of JC