mUltimate Chopin

WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in PE

b. 16

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Grace note in JC

No grace note in EF

Grace note in PE, interpretation
..

Lack of the grace note in EF is most probably a result of Fontana's error in preparation of the base text (copy of [AI]). The difference in the grace note's form – non-slashed in JC, slashed in PE – has no practical meaning in this context, as Chopin often did not pay attention to this detail. The sharp before the ornament is a patent error of the engraver of PE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in PE , Errors in Fontana's editions

b. 16

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

d1-b1 in JC & EF

d1-d2 in PE

d1-b1, our suggestion
..

PE features d2 as the upper note of the crotchet at the beginning of the bar. According to us, it is the so called Terzverschreibung, as using an incomplete chord in a typical cadenza formula ending an eight-bar section is very unlikely. Therefore, in the main text we give b1 which is present in JC and EF. We provide the note with a cautionary .   

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Terzverschreibung error , Errors in PE

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. 22

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Tied b2 in JC

Repeated b​2 in #FE

Rest in PE

Our suggestion
..

At the beginning of the bar, both JC and EF have a b2 quaver (without any performance markings). The note in JC is linked with a slur with the previous b2 at the end of bar 21; the slur seems to sustain the note. In the same place, PE has a quaver rest, which, according to us, was erroneously inserted instead of a note (the engraver's error would consist in repeating the rest featured after the a2 quaver before it). In the main text we propose a version in which the described possible error of PE was corrected on the basis of the remaining sources. At the same time, we consider a possible in this context staccato dot over the note. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors 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