



Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
b. 103-104
|
composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor
..
The slur and crescendo in bars 103-104 were added by Chopin in the proofreading of FE1. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
b. 111-112
|
composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor
..
GE1 overlooked the staccato dot over the 1st chord in bar 112, whereas GE2 (→GE3→GE4) overlooked the staccato indications in the entire progression of chords. A possible aim of the revision was to homogenise all appearances of this bar, however, it is difficult to state why it was bars 55-56 that were chosen as the model. Cf. bars 7-8, as well as 159-160. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 113
|
composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor
..
EE overlooked the staccato dot in the L.H. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE inaccuracies |
||||||||
b. 122-123
|
composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor
..
The category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||
b. 129
|
composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor
..
Leaving the staccato dots in FE (→EE) is, according to us, a result of an inaccurately performed proofreading, whose aim was – same as in analogous bar 25 – to replace dots with accents. The dots were not included in GE, probably after comparison with bar 25. The absence of the accent in the R.H. is certainly an oversight of GE3 (→GE4). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE |