mUltimate Chopin

WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in Fontana's editions

b. 32

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

..

In JC and GEF, the chord in the R.H. at the beginning of the bar is a crotchet. Without any doubt, it is an error (omission of a quaver flag). In bar 32(r) – repetition of bar 32 in Da Capo written out in notes – the described error does not appear in GEF.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors of JC , Errors in Fontana's editions

b. 44-45

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Contextual interpretation of JC & EF

GEF

PE
..

The notation of JC (repeated after bars 17-18) reflects an inaccurate draft notation of [AI]. The notation of GEF is formally correct, although in the light of the version of JC, lack of hold of the second f may be considered as an oversight. The version of FEF raises even more doubts; in this version a relevant slur appears in the written out in extenso repetition of the main part of the Polonaise. However, the notation is inaccurate – a quaver note was combined by a tie with the subsequent one, occurring a crotchet later. The origin of this error, as well as of the discrepancy between the notation of bars 44(r)-45(r) and both GEF and analogous bars (in both versions of EF) may be explained in many ways, yet we consider adding this tie in the latest hasty proofing of FEF to be the most possible explanation.

In the main text we give the improved notation of [A] (→PE).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 52-61

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Tie & slur in JC

Ties in EF

Suggested supplement to EF ties

Ties in PE, possible interpretation

Slurs in PE, probable interpretation
..

The meaning and number of slurs (ties?) starting from the d and d1 crotchets on the 2nd beat of bars 52-53 and 60-61 are ambiguous. Each of two slur-like lines visible in JC may be generally interpreted both as ties and slurs, as we cannot be certain that the copyist read the notation of [AI] properly. Consistent ties in bars 52-53 in EF may be a result of Fontana's interpretation and revision, which is indicated by lack of a similar consistency in bars 60-61. However, assuming that the notation in bars 52-53 is correct, we propose to add the missing ties in bars 60-61. As far as the slur-like lines in the base source (PE) are concerned, if we interpreted them as ties, we would receive different piano grips in analogous figures (bars 52 and 60); according to us, it is an argument for reading them as slurs.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in PE , Errors in Fontana's editions , Inaccuracies in JC , Fontana's revisions

b. 64

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

a-c1-a1 in JC

a-f1 in EF

a-c1-f1 in PE
..

a1 as the highest note of the chord is most probably an error of JC; it is revealed by f1 which is featured both in EF and PE. Analogously, the compatible presence of the c1 note in this chord in JC and PE leads to a conclusion that its omission is probably an error of EF. In the main text we give the version of PE, which does not raise any doubts.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Terzverschreibung error , Uncertain notes on ledger lines , Errors of JC , Errors in Fontana's editions

b. 88-97

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Tie & slur in JC

Slurs in FEF

Slurs in GEF

Suggested supplement to EF ties

Ties in PE, possible interpretation

Slurs in PE, probable interpretation
..

The meaning and number of slurs starting from the d and d1 crotchets on the 2nd beat of bars 88-89 and 96-97 are unclear. The situation in JC and PE, in which those bars are only a repetition of bars 52-53 and 60-61, is discussed in the note concerning those bars. Consistent ties in bars 88 and 96 in EF may be a result of Fontana's interpretation and revision, which is indicated by lack of a similar consistency in bars 89 and 97, including the difference between FEF and GEF in bar 89. However, assuming that the notation of FEF in bars 88-89 and 96 is correct, we propose to add the missing slurs in bar 97.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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