|
b. 47-50
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The change of accents to vertical ones is a quite frequent arbitrary action of EE. In this case, they were additionally moved over the stave, which could be considered justified by the property of piano sound – accented notes sound longer. Interestingly, in analogous b. 191-194 EE inserted authentic, horizontal accents. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 48-49
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The engraver of EE most probably confused these bars, hence the transfer of the accent. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE |
|||||
|
b. 51-52
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The missing slurs must be a mistake of FE, in which these bars are separated by the transition into a new line. When repeated a bar later, this motif is already provided with slurs, which proves the mistake, as a result of which corresponding additions were already introduced in GE and EE. See also the note above. A similar situation can be found in b. 195-196. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 51
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
According to us, the accent was added here – probably by Chopin – due to the absence of the slurs, overlooked in FE (see the note below). In the main text we do not include this mark, since we add the slurs, and it is impossible to decide whether Chopin, upon seeing them, would have added an accent. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||
|
b. 52-53
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
In the main text we add staccato dots under the B category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions |
1 bass notes in these bars. There is no doubt that they should be performed with the same articulation as b. 51, hence Chopin could have considered the dot put the first time to be enough. It cannot be ruled out that the engraver of