Issues : Errors in Fontana's editions
|
b. 9
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
In JC, FEF, and PE, the 5th quaver f is not extended to the value of a crotchet. It is certainly a mistake (the notation's inaccuracy), as the necessity to extend stems from the presence of the tie sustaining this note to the minim f in bar 10. Moreover, in JC, the last quaver, f1, is written erroneously in a two-part form. FEF has a correct notation. category imprint: Source & stylistic information issues: Errors of JC , Errors in PE , Errors in Fontana's editions , Fontana's revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 12-13
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
Lack of hold of the d2-f2 third in EF is probably a result of a misunderstanding of the notation of [AI] or of an oversight. Similarly in bars 39-40. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in Fontana's editions |
||||||||||
|
b. 16
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
Lack of the grace note in EF is most probably a result of Fontana's error in preparation of the base text (copy of [AI]). The difference in the grace note's form – non-slashed in JC, slashed in PE – has no practical meaning in this context, as Chopin often did not pay attention to this detail. The sharp before the ornament is a patent error of the engraver of PE. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in PE , Errors in Fontana's editions |
||||||||||
|
b. 17-18
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
The notation of JC reflects the erroneous draft notation of [AI]. Formally, the notation of EF is correct, but lack of hold of the second f may be considered as an oversight in relation to the remaining sources (or perhaps as a revision – cf. bars 44-45). In the main text we give the more precise notation of [A] (→PE). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in Fontana's editions |
||||||||||
|
b. 21-22
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
The sources differ in the details of the notation of "harmonic legato". In the previous version, the second semiquavers of the groups are extended to the value of a crotchet, except for the last group in bar 21, in which there is no relevant extension (see also the note related to bar 22). In the later version of PE, all those notes are dotted quavers. One could wonder whether Chopin changed here the performance (the second notes of each group were supposed to slightly overlap the next harmony in the previous version) or he just improved the notation, bearing in mind the same performance from the beginning (therefore, the original notation would be simpler, yet less precise). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in Fontana's editions |
