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

Ornaments

b. 19

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

 in JC & EF

No ornament in PE

Our variant suggestion
..

According to us, lack of the ornament in PE is probably a consequence of the engraver's error who did not understand the notation of [A] or simply forgot to include a relevant sign. Therefore, in the main text we propose a possibility of considering a mordent (in this context  = ). 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in PE

b. 21

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

 in JC & EF

 in PE
..

In the main text we give the ornaments in the form of  included in PE. The remaining sources feature . In this context, both markings translate into the same performance.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 23

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Arpeggio sign in JC & EF

No sign in PE
..

In PE there is no arpeggio before this chord, which in this context is certainly an oversight. In JC, both signs of arpeggio in this bar are placed after chords. It seems to be one of the numerous graphic slips committed by the copyist (it also concerns bar 50, which is not written out in JC).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Errors in PE , Inaccuracies in JC

b. 24

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Two  in JC

 in EF

 in PE
..

In each of the sources, the ornament at the end of the bar has a different form. We adopt  written in EF over the R.H., as its application in this place does not raise any stylistic doubts, while  in PE may be a result of a misreading of the sign by the engraver (both  and  tend to be very similar in Chopin's autographs). Therefore, the main text combines the most certain elements of the sources: an ornament, only in the R.H., as it is in EF and PE, and the sign of  from JC and EF.

None of the sources marks lowering the upper note of the trill. We complete this deficiency, as the use of appropriate alterations was most often left to the performers' perspicacity; moreover, the use of a is unquestionable here.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

b. 25-31

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

 in JC & EF

 &  in PE

Our alternative suggestion
..

In PE, the notation of the ornaments on the 2nd quaver in bars 25, 27, 29, and 31 is heterogeneous and taking into account coherent indications in JC and EF (four times ) – probably inaccurate. Therefore, for the main text we adopt the notation of JC and EF. As an alternative solution, we propose a possible reconstruction of Chopin's idea in [A]. After all, the difference does not have any impact on the performance.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in PE