|
b. 52-61
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
The notation of PE, in which the crotchets on the 2nd beat of bars 52-53 and 60-61 are separated from quavers in lower voices, undoubtedly appeared later than the notation of JC and EF. It is compatible with other changes introduced by Chopin into [A] (in relation to [AI]), e.g., in bar 25 and analog. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 52
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
According to us, the indication tenuto adopted in the main text, appearing in PE, may be related to the issue of slur-like lines (slurs?, ties?) between the d and d1crotchets and the chords on the 3rd beat of the bar. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 52-61
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
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. 52
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
The meaning of the slur-like lines combining d and d1 with the chords on the 3rd beat of the bar is not entirely clear in PE – it cannot be excluded that Chopin had in mind ties holding those notes. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
||||||||||||||||
|
b. 52-61
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
Determining which voice-division Chopin wanted to eventually apply in the chords on the 3rd beat of bars 52-53 and 60-61 encounters difficulties due to differences between particular sources and analogous bars, in this case JC due to its ambiguous notation. At the same time, the notation of JC may reflect the notation of [AI] to a certain extent, as this kind of continuous put on the one side of the note heads stems of chords can often be found in Chopin's autographs. The notation of EF is almost certainly a result of Fontana's interpretation of [AI]. The version of PE, with its inconsistency, suggests similar difficulties in reading [A]. In this situation, apart from thoroughly recreated versions of EF and PE, we propose the most possible interpretation of JC and two interpretations of PE, going to the other direction. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources |
