mUltimate Chopin

WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in PE

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. 58-59

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

No markings in JC & EF

Dots under slur in PE
..

Portato markings (dots under the slur) in bars 58-59 in PE most probably come from [A]. In bar 58 their notation is almost certainly inaccurate: dots over two f1 notes are probably a sign of portato markings over four first quavers, while the slur over the dots in the part of the L.H. should start from the 2nd quaver. Due to the fact that the markings cannot be separated from the version of voice-leading introduced into [A], we include them into the variants described in the note dedicated to this issue.

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

issues: Inaccuracies in PE

b. 58

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

No signs in JC & EF

 in PE

 in PE (interpretation)
..

Three subsequent  signs visible in PE are most probably long accents (in Chopin's notation such signs ordered in a sequence, even if they are not long enough to be considered as accents, are similar in their meaning). However, it is only the first one that does not raise any doubts, both as the type of sign and its position are concerned. Therefore, in the case of the remaining two, we give both their literal reading and the most probable, according to us, interpretation.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in PE

b. 60-61

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

No slurs in JC

Slur in EF

Slurs in PE
..

The slurs embracing the motifs on the 1st beat of those bars (in both hands) appear in PE (we do not take into account the slur in the R.H. in bar 60, which we consider in the note concerning the rhythm). In EF, there are no slurs in bar 61, whereas in JC, there are no slurs at all in those bars.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in PE

b. 65

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

No sign in JC & EF

 in PE, interpretation
..

The interpretation of the sign of PE, in spite that it was printed inaccurately, does not raise any major doubts (it is meant to emphasise the delaying dissonance e3), hence we include it in the main text.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in PE