Issues : Fontana's revisions
|
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. 26-30
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
Trill endings in the form of a double grace note are to be found in FEF in all three analogous places (bars 26, 28, and 30), while in PE only in the first two. Regardless of whether the lack of ending in bar 30 appeared still in [A], or if it is a mere engraver's oversight, it seems to be highly unlikely that a trill in this place should be performed differently than in the previous two. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Fontana's revisions |
||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
||||||||||||||||
|
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. 52-61
|
composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major
..
We give the accents appearing in PE over the chords on the 3rd beat of bars 52-53 and 60-61, which are beyond any source and stylistic doubts, in the main text. In JC, there is only the first of them, which is most probably meant to be understood as a draft suggestion of the same notation. The version of EF with category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Fontana's revisions |
in 