mUltimate Chopin

WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in JC

b. 36

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Crotchet f in JC (interpretation) & EF

Crotchet f-e1 in PE
..

The notation of JC is inaccurate: lack of extension of the rhythmic value of the f quaver despite the tie holding it until the next bar. In EF, the notation was improved, yet it is only the notation of PE, based on the later autograph, that describes precisely the performance of this place intended by Chopin.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in JC

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. 52-60

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Arpeggio sign in JC

Arpeggio signs in EF

No signs in PE
..

In the earlier sources, some of the chords in the L.H. on the 3rd beat of bars 52 and 60 are provided with an arpeggio sign: JC has a wavy line in bar 52, while EF – in both. It is hard to determine what was Chopin's intention in this regard. Lack of wavy lines may be explained by an oversight, their presence – by a mistake resulting from a similarity with bars 53 and 61, and in the case of EF also from a generalising revision. It is also possible that Chopin changed his mind: at the time of writing [AI], he predicted arpeggios each time, while in [A] – already not. In the main text we give the version of PE without arpeggios.  
The same applies to bars 88 and 96, which are repetitions of bars 52 and 60.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in JC

b. 53-61

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

3 arpeggio signs in JC

4 arpeggio signs in EF & PE
..

In JC, lack of arpeggio in the R.H. in bar 61 is probably a result of an oversight. All wavy lines in JC are put on the right-hand side of the chords.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in JC

b. 56

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

..

In JC, the  before the chord on the 4th quaver is on the level of d1.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Inaccuracies in JC