mUltimate Chopin

WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in PE

b. 22

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

No sign in JC & EF

 in PE

Possible interpretation of  in PE
..

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. 25-31

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

No marks in JC & EF

Wedges in PE
..

The wedges over and under the first notes in bars 25, 27, 29, and 31 are only in PE. We consider this improvement of the notation, most probably introduced into [A], in the main text. The first of the wedges for the L.H. was mistakenly put under  G in bar 24. In bar 31, only the sign referring to the L.H. was printed.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in PE

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

b. 26-30

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Notation in JC

EF and PE
..

In JC, the two-voice notation of chord pairs in bars 26 and 30 is not complete – it concerns only the first chord of each pair (after all, the notation in bar 30 is inaccurate). In the main text we give the more accurate notation of EF and PE (in the latter a minor error in bar 26 was not avoided). Similarly in bar 28.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in PE

b. 26-28

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Rhythm and a1 in #KJ

Rhythm and f1 in EF

Rhythm and f1 in PE
..

The single-voice notation of the 1st chord in bars 26 and 28 in JC and EF is probably inaccurate: the notation of JC in bars 25 and 27 is a proof that Chopin did not precisely determine the bass note's extensions in [AI]. In the main text we give the notation of PE in both bars in the form used in bar 26; it guarantees a consistent division into voices, in which the two-note chords struck on strong beats of bars 25-26 have the value of quavers. Cf. bar 30. 

As the 2nd quaver in bar 26, JC features the most probably erroneous a1. See the note related to the 4th quaver of that bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in PE