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
Rhythm
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Rhythm

b. 70

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Tie to e4 in JC & EF

No tie in PE
..

In PE, the tie sustaining the quaver beginning the sequence of demisemiquavers is absent both here and in analogous bar 74. In spite of that, the sign's oversight – by the engraver or even by Chopin in [A] – seems to be very likely due to the doubtless hold of this note in JC and EF and a structural analogy with bar 62. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in PE

b. 72-73

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Repeated third in JC & PE

Tied third in EF
..

The ties sustaining the d1-f1 third in EF do not find confirmation neither in the remaining sources nor in analogous bars 76-77, which significantly reduces the probability of their authenticity. The struck third at the beginning of bar 77 is confirmed in PE by the portato articulation marking for this quaver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Fontana's revisions

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

b. 76

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

..

JC has an erroneous tie in the L.H. on the first bar of the beat – there is only one tie written for the entire group.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Rhythmic errors , Errors of JC