|
b. 43
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||||
|
b. 43-44
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||||
|
b. 44
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Dotted or even rhythm |
||||||||||
|
b. 44
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||||
|
b. 44-45
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
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. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources |
