mUltimate Chopin

WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in PE

b. 65

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

No signs in JC

 in EF

  in PE

 &  suggested by the editors
..

When read literally, the dynamic signs of PE in this bar create problems in interpretation. Combination of three signs in such a small space, out of which two, partially overlapping, indicate contrary dynamic changes, suggests inaccuracies or errors in reading [A]. According to us, the first sign is put inaccurately, while two subsequent ones – erroneously (mirror reflection of the sign). In the main text we propose the latter, interpreted as a long accent and  hairpins.

EF has longer  hairpins here, which in this situation may be considered as an alternative for the indications based on PE. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Sign reversal , Errors in PE

b. 65

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

No b1 in JC & EF

b1 in PE
..

From the piano performance's point of view, the four-note chord of PE is awkward (without using pedal, almost impossible to perform). Moreover, the b1 note also does not contribute to the harmonic content and burdens the chord's sound rather unnecessarily. Due to those reasons, we consider it to be erroneous – most probably it was left after an inaccurate proofing: the correct note (d2) was added in order to change b1 into d2, but the wrong one (b1) was not deleted. This kind of "half" proofings can often be met in first editions of Chopin's works, cf., e.g., the Ballade in G minor, Op. 23, bar 171 or the Scherzo in B minor, Op. 20, bars 135 and 292. Cf. also bar 15.

 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in PE , Partial corrections

b. 66

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

..

PE has a quaver rest in this place, which is a patent error. The same applies to bar 102.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Source & stylistic information

issues: Errors in PE

b. 70

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Tie to e4 in JC & EF

No tie in PE
..

In PE, the tie sustaining the quaver beginning the sequence of demisemiquavers is absent both here and in analogous bar 74. In spite of that, the sign's oversight – by the engraver or even by Chopin in [A] – seems to be very likely due to the doubtless hold of this note in JC and EF and a structural analogy with bar 62. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in PE

b. 74

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

d4 in JC, interpretation

Tied d4 in EF

d3 in PE
..

The pitch and possible hold of the 2nd quaver of the bar raise doubts in the sources. Both in JC and in PE, when read literally, the note is a non-sustained d3 quaver, whereas in EF – a d4 quaver held with a tie. In the case of JC, a total lack of the octave sign (embracing 7 quavers) is almost certainly a mistake. The situation is less obvious in PE, where the octave sign was not omitted, yet it starts only from demisemiquavers, while the tie is also absent in bar 70. This version, considered independently of the piece, would not raise any doubts, however, in the context of similar phrases in bars 62-63 and 70-71, it seems to be erroneous.

In the main text we give probably the only authentic version, written faultlessly in EF.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors of JC , Errors in PE