b. 22
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
In the main text we give visible in PE. According to us, it cannot be excluded that the range of the sign was misinterpreted by the engraver; therefore, as an alternative, we propose slightly shorter hairpins which correspond to the division into motifs indicated by the rest and slurs. In JC and EF, there are no performance markings in this bar. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in PE |
||||||||
b. 22
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
In PE there is no returning g1, which is a patent error. Similarly in bar 49, which is not written out in PE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors in PE |
||||||||
b. 22
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
In the main text we give the notation of PE, yet it seems to be very likely that the lack of extension of the bass note e1 is a consequence of inattention. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources |
||||||||
b. 23
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
In JC, the third note counted from the bottom of the chord has a on the level of c2, while its head is on the level of d2. This patent error could have been provoked by Chopin's way of writing the interval of second: due to their small size, note heads were put one over another, as in the case of bigger intervals. Similarly in bar 50, which is not written out in JC. category imprint: Interpretations within context issues: Errors of JC |
||||||||
b. 23
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
In the main text we give the most probably authentic dynamic markings of PE. category imprint: Differences between sources |