mUltimate Chopin

WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 36

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

..

The sources differ here in the notation of the rest for the part of the R.H.; JC has a crotchet rest, which certainly corresponds to the notation of [AI]. In PE, the crotchet rest is additionally extended with a dot, which is a patent error, however, it reveals that also in the case of [A], Chopin insisted on his simplified way of notation. Two quaver rests in EF are probably a result of Fontana's revision. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in PE

b. 37

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

..

In [A] (→PE), bar 37 is the last one written out in notes in this part of the Polonaise. The respective markings (Dal Segno, written as D.S., with a mistake) refer subsequently to bar 11. In the main text we write repeated bars 11-24 as bars 38-51.
In JC, a similar abbreviation of notation includes only bars 40-51. In EF, all subsequent fragments of the Polonaise are written out entirely.

The abbreviations applied in the sources mean that the differences and problems appearing in the bars embraced by them are to a large extent a repetition of those described above. If there are no additional new elements, we do not repeat the content of the remarks, referring to the commentaries given for the first time.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 37

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

f-d1 in JC

f-d1 in FEF

f-d1 in FEF (without tie)

b-d1 in PE

Our alternative suggestion
..

In the previous sources, the accompaniment generally does not show any difference in comparison with the one in analogous bar 10 (in EF the sustained f minims from the previous bar are marked inaccurately ​– a respective tie is featured only in FEF in bars 36(r)-37(r), in Da Capo written out in notes). PE, in turn, has b as the bass note instead of the previous version with the f minim (sustained from the previous bar). According to us, it is not certain whether the version was really intended by Chopin: he could have mistakenly written here the original version of bar 38 (=11).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

b. 37

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Chord in JC

Chord in EF

Third in PE

Our suggestion
..

Both JC and EF have the f-a-e1 chord on the 3rd beat of the bar, yet they differ in the rhythmic values – in JC all components of the chord have values of quavers, while the upper e1 in EF is a crotchet. In PE, we see a simplified notation of the version of analogous bar 10 (the a-c1 third). According to us, it is probably a result of Chopin's negligence, who while writing [A] was already conscious of repeating the text written before (cf. another note in this bar). 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

b. 37

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

..

In JC, both a1 in the group of semiquavers in the R.H. and a in the chord in the L.H. on the 3rd beat of the bar are provided with naturals. It illustrates Chopin's inclination to emphasise the 7th step of the major scale with cautionary accidentals, despite a correct key signature. 

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Cautionary accidentals , Last key signature sign