Issues : EE revisions
b. 107
|
composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor
..
FE (→GE1) omitted the slur in the L.H. It is undoubtedly an engraver's inaccuracy. Cf. the neighbouring note. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||
b. 109
|
composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor
..
FE overlooked the slur in the L.H. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||
b. 119
|
composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor
..
A (→FE→EE1) has no rising g1 to g1 on 4th L.H. quaver, like in other occurences of this bar. The obvious oversight was corrected in GE and EE2. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Accidentals in different octaves , Errors in EE , 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 |
|||||||
b. 137
|
composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor
..
The absence of the tie of g is almost certainly an oversight of the engraver of FE. The tie was added in later GE and EE certainly on the basis of comparison with analogous bar 33. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |