![](/build/images/logo_left-en.png)
![](/build/images/pl-button.5cab5de0.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button.d3d09842.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button-en.5098433b.png)
Issues : Errors in PE
b. 65
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
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 category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Sign reversal , Errors in PE |
|||||||||||
b. 65
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
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 b
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
..
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
..
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 d 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 |