b. 25
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
Lack of on the 5th quaver in EF is most probably a mistake – the note appears in this place both in JC and PE, as well as in all sources in analogous bar 27. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||
b. 26-30
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
The signs over the last quaver in bars 26, 28, and 30 appears only in EF. As they are absent both in JC and in PE, in the main text we leave their possible application to the decision of the performer. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 26-30
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
In the base text, PE, the notation of the accents at the end of bars 26, 28, and 30 is not consistent: bar 26 has a long accent (as in bar 24), but in bar 30 a short accent appears, while in bar 28 there is no sign at all. EF includes only short accents (except for bar 26 in FEF), whereas JC is totally devoid of them. In the main text we propose unified and completed accents of PE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
|||||||||||
b. 26-30
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
In PE, the slurs combining the separated upper notes in bars 26, 28, and 30 probably refer to the entire chords. Cf. the note concerning bars 25-28. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||||||
b. 26-30
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
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 |