mUltimate Chopin

Op. 26 No 1, Polonaise in C♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 53

composition: Op. 26 No 1, Polonaise in C♯ minor

Wedge in A

No wedge in FE (→GE,EE)
..

Both in bar 53 and analogous bar 85 the editions omitted the wedge for the 1st semiquaver in the R.H. The sign was certainly written by Chopin in A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE

b. 53

composition: Op. 26 No 1, Polonaise in C♯ minor

..

In GE4 there is no staccato dot for A1 in the L.H. Its deletion could have been totally accidental. GE5 returned the sign.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 53

composition: Op. 26 No 1, Polonaise in C♯ minor

No slur in A (→FE→GE1,EE1)

Slur in GE2 (→GE3→GE4→GE5) & EE2
 
..

We suggest adding this characteristic for the polonaise cadenza slur in the L.H. It cannot be excluded that Chopin overlooked its completion in this place, as it is present in analogous bar 85 – most probably added by Chopin in the proofreading of FE1. The slur was added in GE2 (→GE3→GE4→GE5) and EE2, most probably as a result of comparison with aforementioned bar 85.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Omitted correction of an analogous place

b. 54-85

composition: Op. 26 No 1, Polonaise in C♯ minor

Repetition in A, contextual interpretation

No repetition in A (literal reading→FE→GE,EE)

Our variant suggestion
..

The sources do not include the sign opening the repetition in this place, yet A does include its ending in bar 85. Chopin either wanted to repeat bars 54-85, yet he forgot to mark it in bar 54, or just the opposite – the sign in bar 85 was erroneously placed and the discussed fragment is not to be repeated. FE (→GE,EE) do not include any repetition signs in these bars, which, can, yet does not have to, indicate Chopin's proofreading. We give the version of the base source, i.e. FE2, as the main text, with a note indicating a possibility of repetition.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Differences in form , Inaccuracies in A

b. 54

composition: Op. 26 No 1, Polonaise in C♯ minor

Dynamic indications in A

No indications in FE (→GE,EE)

Our variant suggestion
..

In FE (→GE,EE) there are no  and  dynamic indications. They were probably overlooked by the engraver, which Chopin did not notice, while he was proofreading FE (possible traces of deleting these indications are invisible). Taking into account this fact, in the main text we leave their inclusion at the discretion of the performer.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE